http://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-republican-democrats-healthcare-bill-senate-2017-7?utm_source=feedburner&%3Butm_medium=referral&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29
>With the Senate Republican healthcare bill stalled due to disagreements within the party, some Republicans are admitting they may have to move to a plan B: working with Democrats.
>Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday said during an event in Kentucky that if GOP senators fail to reach an agreement on a bill that can get 50 votes in the chamber, they would have to work with the other party on a way to stabilize the Obamacare insurance markets.
>"If my side is unable to agree on an adequate replacement, then some kind of action with regard to the private health insurance market must occur," McConnell said.
>McConnell pointed to increasing premiums in the individual insurance marketplaces as the reason Republicans would have to reach across the aisle.
>"No action is not an alternative," McConnell said, according to The Associated Press. "We've got the insurance markets imploding all over the country, including in this state."
>McConnell reportedly used the prospect of working with Democrats as a threat earlier in the negotiations over the Senate healthcare bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA).
>Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas on Thursday also suggested Republicans may have to work with their Democratic counterparts to solve healthcare. Moran said he would have preferred to deliberate the bill in a more open fashion in the Senate, instead of using the more secretive process for which McConnell was criticized, and "figure out where there are 60 votes to pass something."
>The Kansas Republican also said there was no consensus within the 52-member GOP conference on the healthcare bill.
>The BCRA hit a roadblock after its introduction. Conservative members rejected the bill because it did not go far enough in its repeal of Obamacare. On the other hand, more moderate members said the bill goes too far in stripping away funding from programs like Medicaid.
>Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer welcomed the remarks from McConnell is a statement. The Senate's top Democrat expressed willingness to work with Republicans if they chose to do so.
>"It’s encouraging that Sen. McConnell today acknowledged that the issues with the exchanges are fixable, and opened the door to bipartisan solutions to improve our health care system," Schumer said. "As we’ve said time and time again, Democrats are eager to work with Republicans to stabilize the markets and improve the law."
that actually may not be a bad idea provided they repeal it first.
Getting both parties on board, provided they get it right, would assure we don't have to go through the same BS again once the Democrats are in charge again.
Why are Republicans such pussies
The Demoshits didn't work with the Republicans for the ACA.
90% of them ran on the platform of repeal and replace, but they even repeal, let alone replace.
I vote straight Republican, but this shit got old 8 years ago.
They're doing the same thing with gun rights too. Notice all those laws to deregulate suppressors got dropped too.
If the Demoshits weren't a party of virtue signaling, ultra cuck, anti white male, nigger worshippers, then I'd just vote for them and cut out the middle man of the Republicans
>>154826
Compromises are what makes a stable and successful government. If Republicans do work with Democrats on healthcare, I hope that would encourage further compromise during the next Democrat administration. If neither has the humility to bend their knee first, we're in for a series of flip-flop reactionary legislation, which helps no one
>>154828
Fuck that, Obama didn't compromise for shit. Democrats can take that and shove it up theirs. Tired of playing fair with these valueless Globalist ideologs, fuck em
>>154826
The Dems rammed it through because the system the US had before the ACA was absolutely horrendous and arbitrarily cruel.
We had universal coverage only for emergency care. This discouraged healthy people from buying comprehensive insurance, which made insurance almost useless because all of the high risk (old, sick) individuals were highly concentrated in the most robust policies, meaning cost of premiums approached what average cost of care would be.
Poor people had to wait until their condition was emergency-level before seeking care at which point the taxpayer would be on the hook for their cost of care. Even if it would have cost the taxpayer less, caused less suffering, and allowed the patient to be productive and hold down a job if they could have just received some preventative care.
The system the US has now is far from perfect but it's better in just about every way from what we used to have. People aren't dying slow painful deaths because they can't afford some patented pharmaceutical that's marked up 5000% or because they don't get to shop around for emergency rooms when there's an emergency. People can't vote with their dollar under these circumstances so to leave it up to private industry is fundamentally nonsensical.
>>154841
Obama selected several Republicans for his cabinet and the GOP promised not to negotiate with Democrats on any legislation.
>>154826
>The Demoshits didn't work with the Republicans for the ACA
Obama didn't sign the thing until the Republicans had the chance to put everything they wanted in it. That was the stipulation he made to try and create compromise. It crippled the bill and he still passed it, and then the media still called it Obamacare.
>>154841
the ACA included several amendments from Republican congressmen.
>If the Demoshits weren't a party of virtue signaling, ultra cuck, anti white male, nigger worshippers,
Ouch, cut myself on your edge big guy.
>>154852
>Horrendous and arbitrarily cruel
Lol no it wasn't.
Healthcare is a service, not a right, and making insurance mandatory to put everyone on a system is amazingly stupid
Don't kid yourselves; GOP knows exactly what they're doing. Nobody thought the AHCA could pass the House too.
They'll definitely repeal because they know their actions will be unpopular no matter what they do, so they'll default to satisfying their donors at least.
What they're doing now is a calculated effort to appear undecided. They're purposely creating uncertainty regarding the future system of health insurance for the US in the hopes more insurers drop out of exchanges until the last possible moment. The idea is to create as much urgency as possible for a replacement that only they can deliver before they pass their repeal and replace. They might even repeal a little before they replace.
These guys have no humanity. They'll drag along those most desperate for protection on a rollercoaster ride for as long as they can just for the sake of minimizing the hit they take in their poll numbers at the end for defaulting to serving their big donors.
>>154876
>Healthcare is a service, not a right, and making insurance mandatory to put everyone on a system is amazingly stupid
I disagree because I think the government should be responsible for doing more than protecting a free market and basic right. I think improving quality of life, giving the working class peace of mind, among other things, are areas government can make a positive impact.
Toward these ends, capitalism is useful as a tool, but there are exceptions with respect to its utility so we require a foundation of capitalism with a framework of regulation superimposed by government to enable especially the working class peace of mind, protect ecology, and provide a foundation of future economic and security interests of the nation.
The alternative to the ACA meant the US couldn't have useful health insurance that gave the working class peace of mind in case of disaster. In this light, since everyone has risk that increase as they get older, it's not unreasonable everyone should be responsible for paying into the insurance system.
The main problem is most conservatives feel the Fed has NO place in the insurance industry. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines and offer many different plans, then people will purchase what they need. Most college age only need catastrophic coverage, but the ACA makes them buy full blown plans. Why are men required to pay for prenatal and post-natal care on their personal insurance? Pre-existing conditions should have an end in sight otherwise you only need insurance when you actually need it. It is like waiting till you wreck your car to get automotive insurance.
>>154903
Then why didn't they push for single payer like every other country? Instead they left us with a half working piece of crap which is slowly dying on its own as insurance companies continue to leave the markets.
>>154903
The government is not your parent, you are responsible for yourself. Amazingly American had the best healthcare in the world before the ACA and the most innovation. The countries with single payer use long wait times and slow access to service to cuts down on cost. That is why most people were coming to the US for care.
>>154911
That was the Democratic strategy, create the ACA and have it fail to install Single Payer. They said that the ACA was the best they could do but that single-payer was next.
>>154826
I don't understand this either, the insurance companies are leaving the exchanges. I would think companies are no longer paying for congress to keep the ACA. The real question is who is still making money off the ACA to keep paying congress to leave the ACA alone? Any idiot could tell you, adding an extra layer of bureaucrats and regulators was never going to lower rates.
>>154918
I understand that was their thought process, but it is bullshit. They had the perfect opportunity, controlled both the house and Senate, as well as the presidency. They could have passed a law saying that the sky was green and everyone should get free Healthcare because of it if they were so inclined. Instead they decided to put in place a system designed to fail, set it up in such a way that it will fail during the next presidency due to the gradual roll out and allow for them to swoop as the saviors once again with a "new" system they could have implemented a decade ago and saved everyone a lot of headache. To top it all off they hired a company which couldn't program or design it's way out of a wet paper bag to make the website and lost billions there. The entire thing has just been a shit show and while I didn't like the old system, people are justified in being pissed at the ACA.
>>154912
>The government is not your parent, you are responsible for yourself.
You can put it that way if you want, but I don't want to be responsible for something out of my control; I'd like to live in a society where everybody contributes toward the peace of mind of everyone else. It's not a bad thing to use government to improve quality of life where the free market incentives by themselves failed.
>>154911
Because at least half of the democrats in office are corporatist too, so any solution they come up with will have to appease their donors same as the GOP. That being said, Obamacare isn't going to self destruct unless no reform are made and enough uncertainty exists which is what many Republicans are hoping to set the conditions for.
>>154920
>Any idiot could tell you, adding an extra layer of bureaucrats and regulators was never going to lower rates.
It is in healthcare, since it's a unique case of a market where where consumers often can't vote with their dollar.
>>154926
>Obamacare isn't going to self destruct unless no reforms are made
So it is going to self destruct if left on its own. The Democrats wrote a shitty bill that was doomed to fail and it doesn't become the Republicans fault when they choose not to stop it from doing so. This is classic trolley problem. Maybe if they wanted something that worked for all Americans like they claimed, they should have just wrote the damn thing right the first time. Instead they just danced for their corporate masters like they always do and decided to fuck us all over in the process. Fucking scum. I am glad a lot of them lost their seats, though sadly the Republicans aren't any better.
>>154861
Wow, politicians are shameless and toe the party line, no way!
>>154926
Yeah that's called socialism and it's been tried and it doesn't work. See litterally any nation whose tried it, end of discussion.
I want to live in a world where im an adult responsible for myself and able to succeed and fail on my own merits. I dislike the government because of several reasons. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, and grow larger. Besides that, everything they touch from the DMV to the VA is run horribly.
>>154953
>able to succeed and fail on my own merits
If there was no government, there would be monopolies, certainly more of them, who would provide for vaccines? Who would certify that the food is not poisoned, I could stay all day at this.
>>154955
No, monopolies can only exist if the government allows them to exist, or the people decide to participate in their services regardless. Otherwise, any and all monopolies you've ever heard of have collapsed under their own weight.
Who would certify the food is clean? Well anyone who wants you to return to their store and by more of it I imagine.
In any case I'm not advocating zero government, I'm advocating less if it. You're painting a strawman.
>>154928
Why intentionally leave out the second half of that statement? In any case yeah I agree with you about the ACA being too cozy with private insurance companies but that was the best we could hope for with the democrats we had in congress.
>>154953
Lots of countries have socialist healthcare system, many are growing faster and enjoy higher quality of life than the US
>>154956
>In any case I'm not advocating zero government, I'm advocating less if it. You're painting a strawman
I'm not certain why it matters"how much" government exists, just that it exists in the places that capitalism alone doesn't produce an optimal result. I get that conservatives would rather have less government for its own sake outside of things like police and the army, they're weary of state power, and I appreciate that to an extent but it's just not my top priority. I just draw the line in the sand as far as govt overreach at a very different place. If people are unable to work and dieing painfully of preventable causes and probably going to cost taxpayers anyway with ever ER visit, to me it's hard to see how it's worse to have some of what they would consider overreach.
>Who would certify the food is clean? Well anyone who wants you to return to their store and by more of it I imagine.
I'm willing to tolerate some increased inefficiency in some places in order to have an assurance that I can live my life without having to do research regarding to particular food handling, storage, and preparation practices and body counts of a given business. If I can focus instead on whatever I specialize in, that probably makes up for whatever inefficiencies are caused by the FDA and USDA existing.
Ever heard the phrase, penny wise, pound foolish?
Yep, gov isnt our parent. Yep we have free will. Yep, Gov isnt supposed to pay our way, but Gov is supposed to try to help protect genrl public against avaricious greedy materialists who'd take advantage of the genrl public. The prob w Gov Health care is INDUSTRIAL PHAR MED MUST BE CAPPED! Otherwise its a bottomless pit w the public dying in our death cult profit greed materialist Kapitalism!
>>154975
Remember, the government has been mankind's worst enemy since it's inception. Don't make your bed in man-made institutions where you levy control and power so things you could do yourself to others, who often don't care about anyone but themselves.
And to your point, Democratic socialism is a recent experiment that is already beginning to crack. The Nordic counties will collapse soon, as will Japan. Welfare states can never last, for they reward the lazy and punish the industrious.
>>154876
That's just your opinion, and there's a reason no one takes you or it seriously.
>>154841
Perhaps governing the country on the basis of, "b-but they were meanies to us" isn't the most mature solution. But I guess thats to be expected when the GOP is run by entitled spoiled brats.
>>154877
You're absolutely right. I don't think all of the republicans are this despicable, but they all seem to be content to let everything fall apart as they usually do, and once again the poor will be the ones to bear the brunt of their obvious contempt for the downtrodden in this company. But hey, as long as Verizon and Exxon's profit margins don't decrease everything's good in their books.
Medicaid is a state run program. Feds should have no involvement in funding or dictating anything to do with Medicaid. The current bill has a huge bailout for the insurance carriers dumped onto the taxpayers. No tears here for the thieving insurance carriers. The government F's Up everything they touch. They have no business involving themselves with the regulation of healthcare. That just increases cost, waste, fraud and lack of access. These are all matters relegated to the States. Repeal it. Let the States fix it.
>>154996
If one doesn't want to let the government insure everyone, then the only alternative exists is to pay private insurance companies to do it and expect everyone to pay into the system because that's the only way insurance can work in a way most Americans can afford if they encounter catastrophe.
As far as letting states decide for themselves, fine, but I hope that's something actually achievable. California wants to experiment with a state-level single-payer system to they'll need some waivers from Health and Human Services in order to use medicaid money for that instead, Tom Price should be willing to grant them those.
If you want affordable health care, you don't move farther to the left through compromise, you pull the government further out of the market and leave it to market forces. Competition= higher quality and lower prices, government subsidies only incentivize increases in costs. And this pre-existing condition nonsense destroys the entire concept of insurance, takes the gamble out, and bankrupts companies, leading them to pull out of the market in the long term and increases in cost in the short term. People need to get away from the false idea that government involvement in the market EVER makes things affordable
>>154988
Noones interested in working with the Democrats anymore
You can't treat conservatives like shit, mock them, ridicule their values and lifestyle and then whine that they need to be more consilatory towards your progressive ideology when they come into power.
>>155005
>Noones interested in working with the Democrats anymore
>Republicans are starting to admit they may have to work with Democrats on healthcare Anonymous
>>154975
The second half was addressed at the end when I complained about how the majority of politicians serve corporate interests above those of the citizens that elected them. And I'm sorry, but I am just not willing to accept that just because we had a bunch of corporate puppets in office I should be happy with the bill we got. Healthcare is not a game and creating a shitty system like they did is hurting millions of people in this country. I just cannot forgive them for that.
>>155005
>You can't treat liberals like shit, mock them, ridicule their values and lifestyle and then whine that they need to be more consilatory towards your conservative ideology when they have enough power despite being a minority.
>>155004
This
>>154876
>Country founded on the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness
>Governments are founded to protect these rights
>Having good health is not related to any of those things
Idiot.
>>154800
What's up. As a right leaning fellow I can only say this is a good thing. I don't want my government to be fractured against itself; I just want to own high powered weaponry, strong borders and for gay immigrant Mexicans to get healthcare when they need it without forcing themselves into debt.
Fuck the Chinese though. Rock, flag and eagle.
>>155028
Health is a fucking gamble dumbass. It depends on hundreds, maybe thousands of factors and the largest one being your inherited traits and your lifestyle choices.
The governments job isn't to seek out cosmic justice for everyone, idiot
>>155036
>>154876
>the governments job isn't to seek out cosmic justice for everyone, idiot
Nope but it is the government's job to allocate power. And the power to keep people alive exists within our society. Therefore the government has a say in how that power is used. Just like they have a say in whether you have the power to legally drive a car.
Like you said yourself health is a gamble. However we have the power to make it less of a gamble for whoever has access to healthcare. At this point hopefully you can see that whether healthcare is a service or a right is irrelevant. All that matters is how we decide to allocate it and what should be the benchmark for who gets access.
For the service/right to drive a car, that benchmark is simply to pass a test proving you can drive safely. This is fair by the government because the benchmark is directly related to the service. So for healthcare why should the benchmark for access be that you can afford it? That you have the money to pay? Having lots of money has absolutely no relevance to the ability to stay alive despite health setbacks, just like having a lot of money would have no relevance to driving a car. Being able to buy the access to a driver's license would be absurd.
All that is relevant in your ability to face down the gamble of being alive is the fact that you are already alive and wish to remain so. The benchmark for access to healthcare should be directly related to the service itself. Looking at it from that side you can see why it is absurd for the government to set up a system that denies access to healthcare on the basis of whether you can afford it.
Idiot.
>>155055
It's not the governments job to allocate power. It's the governments job to secure our right to live freely.
It's our duty to allocate power to the government as we see fit.
>>155063
Not dying painfully of a preventable cause, being able to hold down a job, and not worrying about a lapse in coverage when I change careers all seem pretty liberating.
In many ways more liberating than the security I get from throwing more money at the militat and police departments.
>>154822
Yeah just repeal it first. Then force the democrats to help them replace it.
>>155063
>It's the governments job to secure our right to live freely
Sorry but you're wrong, that's an idealistic view of what a government should be rather than what it is. If you look at governments across the world you will see most tend towards oppression rather than freedom when left unchecked. Even in supposedly democratic forms of government like our own, the people's duty to allocate power, as you say, is very limited. We live in a republic meaning we effectively decide almost nothing, we just pick the people who will decide and hope they do as they say they will.
Even with that voice in a republic you will see power is often allocated without the people's say at all when it makes sense to do so. Gay marriage becoming legal is a great example. It came through a Supreme Court ruling because it was basically common sense based on the established laws of the U.S., and putting it to a public referendum would have only created divisions and controversy over something that needed to happen anyways.
I see healthcare similarly to that. It is not your duty as an individual to decide how that power is allocated by the government because of course as an individual you would vote based on your best interest, and if you can afford access to healthcare based on the current system then naturally you would be against the change. However if the change is necessary and right it does not matter if the majority of voters is against it regardless of whether this is a democracy or not.
>>155069
I'm confused what leverage you think the Republicans have to force the Democrats to do anything, especially help replace it. If the Republicans repeal with no plan in place the healthcare system would be chaos and blame would fall squarely on the repealers while the Democrats laughed their way to the polls. That is why the repeal must come with a replacement
>>155064
Assuredly you aknowledge that many tradgedies are preventable by a number of of things, but that you might bestow total control to the government just to rid yourself of some of those tragedies is a foolish notion
>>155076
like what, for example?
>total control to the government
Like TSA, the largest military in the world, militarized police force?
Somehow the political right thinks all of these things are varying degrees of agreeable, but government mandating everyone pay into a health insurance system because everyone has some risk is a gross overreach of power?
In fact, why isn't healthcare more important of a government guarantee than a police force, while both are assuredly important?
I'm much more likely to die more painfully of one of myriad conditions for which modern healthcare is essential than of being stabbed or shot.
>>155082
>The military
>The police
Yeah litterally the only thing the government is beholden to, national security
>>155088
lol except police isn't national security they would fall under internal security and if you believe the government is beholden to maintaining a police force then that necessitates laws to be enforced which necessitates some process of creating and modifying these laws which would be the responsibility of the government......hopefully I don't need to go on for you to see that the government is beholden to much more than security
>>155036
I didn't realize we were still in the witch doctor era of medical science.
>>155076
It's not you or I who have control over healthcare right now. It's the private insurance companies. If we gave that power over to the government instead then at least we would have some say in it instead of being at the mercy of parasitic corporations that value profit over human lives.
>>155138
Nothing easier than finding flaws in a man made system. Much harder finding a solution that will actually be better for everyone
>>155141
If only someone would propose some kind of universal health care program.
If only...
>>155138
The fault with private corporations lies with them influencing politicians with lobbyists and billions in donations to candidates and campaigns. It's not illegal but it's incredibly underhanded. Of course when one company does it, every other major competitor compulsion to do the same or risk suffering loss of leverage. And of course the only reliable way to end that is pass campaign finance reform and turn back the Citizens United ruling.
Beyond that, I don't blame companies trying to turn a profit. That is the role they play in our society. But individual self-interest and free markets by themselves, while they serve an important role, aren't omnipotent. There are plenty of exceptions to their ability to serve overall economic interests, to improve quality of life, to protect ecology.
For example, most people can't vote with their dollar when it comes to provision of emergency care or patented life saving medication. Without affordable, comprehensive, and reliable health insurance, market principles that incentivise providers to compete for consumer dollars in many cases don't apply to this industry. Without government mandate, affordable, comprehensive, reliable health insurance wasn't a reality for the average American.
>>155147
Uncommon to find constructive posts like this one on 4chan, even in /news/. Good job, anon.
>>155093
Hah please. Next you'll tell me that government is beholden to build and maintain roads!
>>155177
And not healthcare
>>154980
>Welfare states can never last, for they reward the lazy and punish the industrious.
Here's someone who's spending their freshman year's summer reading Ayn Rand. I bet you can't wait to meet up with your friends again in the fall to tell them about how in the social sciences the so-called academic elites are merely second-hand souls!
>>155182
>Straight out of the box with insults
Pretentious and stupid are a deadly combination
>>154876
>making insurance mandatory to put everyone on a system is amazingly stupid
But we did that before the ACA. It was called "faint in front of an ER." Legally hospitals were required to treat you and also, legally, had no means of enforcing payment (debt goons, credit, wage gouging (assuming the person was healthy enough to work... and you can't gouge their family), etc.). That meant the costs were eaten first by the hospital, but the hospital would always appeal to the state, which usually had a certain discretionary budget set aside, and every hospital had basically another bureaucrat whose job it was to handle bill claims with the state over freebie/deadbeat patients that nobody wanted to claim they had responsibility for.
But at the end of the day, the hospital still has to treat the patient until they can safely get out the door, no matter what. It's part of the Social Contract that addresses the question of "should uninsured cancer patients die on the streets to save their family money?" and "whose job is it to help that no-ID no-wallet person who fell down the stairs and went comatose?" and "what if the ambulance took that person to the hospital that turned out to be not in his insurance network?"
By still requiring individuals to purchase plans or get employer plans, the system is still pretty messy and has sparse coverage and doesn't address all the issues above, but it cuts much of the expense, unpredictability, and unaccountability of dealing with uninsured or improperly-insured patients by reducing their frequency by as much as 80%. This is an important first step: proper accounting.
Can't we just add a .02$ tax to yhe dollar on non-food related purchases, use the money exclusively for American Healthcare? Illegals buy gas and tv's also, so it is not like Americans would lose out much by it.
>>154980
>Welfare states can never last, for they reward the lazy and punish the industrious
If by "punish" you mean the metaphorical equivalent of a small prick on the skin, sure.
>>154861
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-filibusters-his-own-bill-to-lift-debt-ceiling
>>155263
Depends how many are on welfare and how extensive the benefits of being on welfare are
The negative psychological and social consequences of large welfare programs are well documented
hey wild thought
how about instead of arguing about which way we funnel money to the health insurance racket, we normalize insurance prices by removing the requirement to have health insurance and mandate that hospitals and doctors quote estimated costs for medical procedures, costs which would be deflated since it removes the game between health providers and insurance companies trying to extract the most profit from the unquoted procedure
>muh democrats
>muh republicans
>muh trump
/news/ losers, all politicians suck. stop picking teams
>>155232
Arguments are that a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary for a Federal sales tax (even though types of Federal income tax were in place for decades prior to the 16th Amend.) and that any new category of Federal tax is a serious precedent breach. Since history has been clear on this, a court case would be filed and heard at the SCOTUS the moment a FPT got passed and the Amendment process would begin and take years to implement, if it ever did.
>>155264
Btw, now that McConnell ended the filibuster, if and when Dems win the 2020 Congress (Census year, in which they get to redraw districts if they win state legislatures) they only need a simple majority in the Senate to pass whatever they want. Their first vengeance, and the only justifiable one based on McConnell's move, will be in Healthcare, and you can bet your ass it will be Medicare For All -- i.e. socialized medicine.
You reap what you sow, Republicans and Trumptards.
>>155285
While it's true that as a patient I had to jump through many hoops over several days to get a quote on a procedure from a hospital that I was prescribed from my doctor, this is only part of the problem, since some of the most expensive procedures have highly variable prices as things like anesthesia and duration of operation may be adjusted on the spot. That said, highly customer-competitive industries in such cases would do fixed pricing that averages costs for all patients so that what is quoted can be consistent.
So yeah, it's a good point.
>>155285
>/news/ losers, all politicians suck. stop picking teams
This is why we're in the boat we're in now.
>13 years old in 2007
>wow Republicans are absolute garbage, scandals everywhere, a tanked economy, a poor response to said economy, a lingering war, corruption everywhere, and unbridled support for money in politics
>22 in late 2016
>hmm it's been a while since the GOP was in charge maybe it will be pretty good
>23 in 2017
>wow holy shit this is the worse i completely forgot about 2007 please for the love of god get the GOP out talk about unleashing the flood gates of corporate interest groups get them out get them out GET THEM OUT
>>154876
>Healthcare is a service, not a right
I agree, but I hope you're consistent and also believe that the government protecting property rights with organized force is a service, not a right.
>>155317
Governments job is to protect and defend your rights. That means they prevent forcible infringements of the right to life (national security, public defense, fire safety) liberty (public courts) and pursuit of happiness ( public courts, infrastructure)
>>155320
If protecting you from fires is preventing a forcible infringement of the right to life, then so is protecting you from health problems.
>>155321
"health problems" is way to broad though
does everybody have a right to eternal life?
what are you're thoughts about state sponsored blood transfusion from young people to older folks which I believe studies have proved reverses biological aging processes?
>>155322
You're asking about details. My point is that what you consider to be a right is arbitrary. If you want to discuss the details, then let's start with this: do you consider being treated for medical emergencies to be a right? And regarding the state sponsored blood transfusion, no, I think that would go much too far into authoritarian collectivism.
I'm not a proponent of massive public healthcare. I'm just pointing out that the "rights" argument is weak.
>>155322
Cont. Every positive action that the government takes in order to secure "rights" is a "service".
>>155321
>Government protects from fires so people can go about their day without all the town burning. Health considerations are almost always a personal issue with little bearing on anyone else. The only time I can think health concerns would be the governments problem is if there was a plague or massive catastrophic disease outbreak
>>155004
pants on head retarded. america pays way more per capita for health care than any other country in the world by a huge margin. just get a national system in place for everyone and end this bullshit.
please bother to research things before you just spew memes like muh trikle down ecanamics and muh free market.
>>155326
I can understand the libertarian perspective, but I don't think it's an issue of winners and losers. While in the short term the wealthy are taking a hit, the well-being of society is everyone's gain. I've seen a number of studies showing better mental health among those who were given Medicaid (lower rates of depression/anxiety), and that translates to better workers/better citizens. No matter how rich you are, you depend on blue collar workers.
We should always be hesitant to infringe on citizen's freedoms (in this case through taxes), but sometimes society's benefits are all of our benefits. The ability of insurers to crucify those with preexisting conditions and the number of mechanics and construction workers who couldn't afford insurance for their children had to be addressed somehow.
>>155313
Ever consider that they support corporations and businesses because those are more valuable and actually contribute to society unlike you? There's a rhyme and a reason why Republicans are pro-business, and that's because, in the grand scheme of things, you and me are expendable. If we died, nothing changes. The only people in this world worth a damn are the people at the top, the Captains of Industry. A couple thousand of us dies, society moves on. One of them crashes, well, everyone suffers. That's what the Republicans realize. That's why they prioritize the top of the pyramid. Really, the rest of us are just riding the coattails of the Fords, Carnegies, or Jobs. Conservatives understand that a little bit of gratitude is in order.
>>155346
I think in the end there are people that feel they were born to live the way they see fit and never agreed to participate in society - and yet society demands the fruits of those people without offering anything worthwhile to people of certain personalities and temperments.
Being a unified collective that shares everything and lifts eachother up is fine for some people. For others, that's not their drive and they feel more individualistic. It's a complex issue, and it is perhaps best remedied by having different communities run in different ways.
>>154910
Pre-existing needs to be redefined. As is the car insurance comparison fails. I can choose to buy a new car or a shit car from a shady dealer. However I can't choose when or what per-existing conditions I may manifest. Meaning I'm fucked if I get some crippling illness at the ripe old age of 10. As every insurer will bleed me out or reject me unless I go through an employer willing to pay. Now if everyone could do the latter, we wouldn't have a problem but hey here we are.
Its nonsensical to loop in what would have been a responsible citizen in with the group that does wait till their in a bad situation to go grab some insurance.
>>155349
>Not sure how to argue? Just type a wall of text that could just be replaced by the word "nihilism!"
Truly the last fleeting argument of a dying debate.
>>155350
I get it, there is no perfect solution, sometimes some folks will get a bit of the short end of the stick than others. My solution for those folks is go become mountain men and live life off-the-books.
As far as nobody agreeing to be subject to government, I don't know that anyone deserves the condition we're born into. Trying to determine who deserves what is a fruitless effort. Self-interest and profit incentive are useful tools, a foundation of capitalism generally speaking is good for society. But I'm not under an illusion that it's some ethical good. Considering all the conditions we could be born into in our society, I don't think most people "deserve" most of what they have in any meaningful way. Maybe some folks really go above and beyond purely under their own will, and maybe it's good to think that everyone gets what they deserve.
But I don't know that it's true often enough so most of the time so I'm generally just not concerned with that line of reasoning. I just want to create a condition where people are as free as possible, and freedom comes from many places. Freedom of speech, expression, right to bear arms, right to spending money in one's paycheck. But also food security, technology, in peace of mind of knowing you or the folks you care about will be cared for in case of catastrophe. If this means some people relatively lose out somewhat. so that the rest gain a lot more, so be it.
>>155412
>Become mountain men
That's the problem. There's no wilderness living anymore, unless you want to be a deranged hermit. There's no "pack up and start our own society"
There's just stagnant governship and corrupt politics.
>>155416
>There's just stagnant governship and corrupt politics.
If the AHCA passes, it certainly will be because we will get a massive transfer of wealth to the top one percent who may or may not feel any loyalty to the US at the cost of working class Americans.
Or by slashing EPA in ways that doom everyone who can't afford to move elsewhere to the whims of however local industry decides to treat the surrounding air, soil, and water.
>>155431
It's not a "transfer" of wealth. It's just letting people keep their own money. It will, actually, let everyone keep more of their own money.
>>155433
It literally will not let sick people keep their money assuming they want to stay alive.
>>154910
>otherwise you only need insurance when you actually need it.
That's one reason why the tax incentive/mandate/penalty principle, the "carrot and stick," is necessary. Once a person is no longer a dependent he/she has to buy insurance -- they can't just decide to only buy it as soon as they need it, hence the whole "pre-existing condition" thing.
The thing about pre-existing conditions before Obamacare was that most uninsured or underinsured obtained the PECs prior to when they could actually buy insurance, or they missed out on continuing coverage from COBRA (which is insanely expensive and only lasts 6 months, so if you lose your job during a recession and can't get a new one that has employer health care, you're fucked) , or had to leave your job to take care of family as a housewife/mother, or left school without being hired right away, or left the country and returned, etc etc etc.
>>155434
I'm not really understanding how, what part of the proposed bill makes you think that
>>155433
If you want to give them a taxbreak, then just do that when you do your tax reform thing.
This is supposed to be a healthcare bill that incentivises everyone to purchase robust health insurance policies so that health insurance is actually useful in case of disaster, which is in turn important because of what providers can get away with charging at pharmaceuticals, device companies, hospitals.
Those in poverty will go on medicaid, while the working-class, and middle class won't benefit as much from a tax cut, so won't have much incentive at all to purchase a robust policy until they need it. Which risks bringing us back to the same pre-ACA condition of robust insurance policies being useless because cost of premiums approach cost of care. Weakening regulation regarding what insurers have to cover provides a further disincentive.
>>154918
>>154921
Wow you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. You also either did not pay attention in 2009-2012, did not come out of puberty yet, or have shit memory (which is unfortunately not uncommon in political discussion) of the conflicting Blue Dog Dems and the working theory that there could be bipartisanship with Snowe and McCain (who with Lieberman (Dem/I) was still pissed at Obama), the political lessons of legislating HillaryCare and RomneyCare, etc. It wasn't a rubber stamp at all, even though at the time the vast majority of Americans and physicians supported not only the individual policies proposed in the ACA, but also the so-called public option.
>>154983
Says the fuggin socialist haha
>>155437
If sick people can't afford insurance they will have to pay out of pocket. This can bankrupt them. Rich healthy people will be able to keep their money though. It just changes who pays.
>>155488
What makes you think the new bill will make it unaffordable?
>>155489
Healthcare is unaffordable because it's an industry where most people can't vote with their dollar.
You have profit margins of several thousand percentage points because drugs that prevent people from dying a painful death can be patented and pharma can charge as high as bankruptcy for most people, and people will pay it. Many of these drugs benefitting from taxpayer funded NIH research.
You have a condition where if you're in an emergency condition or incapacitated, you're brought to the nearest emergency room, you don't have an opportunity to shop for the best one.
The only option is for there to exist health insurance that's affordable and robust.
>>155494
Currently it's unaffordable or the bill is going to make it unaffordable?
What part of the new bill makes you think it will be?
>>155416
>No wilderness living
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming
There's plenty of wilderness living, it just sucks. People in rural areas are dropping like flies from alcohol, opiates, and misery.
>>155501
Healthcare is often unaffordable when paid out-of-pocket
The ACA rectified that by regulating the bare minimum insurance had to cover and in exchange mandating everyone buy some health insurance.
If you weaken either of those, you run into a problem that we had pre-ACA where cost of premium approach cost of care which is unaffordable if paid out-of-pocket when people suffer catastrophic disease, or people risk losing insurance coverage when they need it most even if they had been paying into the system.
>>155526
It's patently unaffordable out of pocket because everyone uses insurance.
>>155494
It costs about a billion dollars to develop a drug and only 1 in 5000 drugs developed will actually make it to market. Pharmaceutical industries pay for 60% of all costs while tax payers cover about a third with independent organizations picking up the remainder. Patents last for 20 years after invention, but due to it taking about 8 years for a drug to be approved they only really get 10 years for exclusive sale. Do you see now why prices are high to recoup losses and fund future research, especially in the case of specialty drugs which have a small market?
>>154800
Liberals wish this were true
>>155547
In the case of pharmaceutical industry in particular, I fully understand that the process of research, development, clinical trials, approval, production, marketing &c. already contribute to the high cost of medical treatment.
Yet on top of that, many pharmaceutical companies still get away with exceptionally high profit margins even then because of the unique nature of the healthcare marker.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223
I think access to conventional preventativ healthcare is a right, at least as justified for everyone to be expected to contribute toward as national defense, police force, intelligence agencies, because people much more likely to die a painful death from disease than any other cause. All of these things on the whole contribute towards individual freedom.
>republicans
>healthcare
pick one
>>155285
You can find out the cost of a procedure already, unless it's an emergency or you're incapacitated in which case you're going to the hospital closest to you and will pay whatever they tell you; you don't have a choice. Or unless whatever insurance plan is available to you to purchase prevents you from shopping elsewhere in the first place.
Of course, that's only considering cost of emergency care. There's a lot more to unaffordable cost of care and uncompetitiveness of the industry as a wholeg in reducing costs than that.
There's also the problem of scarcity. Many communities don't have more than one hospital nearby. Even if market forces applied perfectly, people would have to move to where there wasn't a monopoly or duopoly, or it will take time for the addition infrastructure of competing hospitals with all the requisite deptartments to become available.
>>155563
Issues as I see it:
>Mandatory/widespread insurance raises out of pocket costs, because they can charge higher prices without there being any pushback for insurance holders
>Emergency/catastrophic insurance is useful, but people with pre-existing conditions or long term health issues absolutely fuck the costs of insurance to the high heavens
>Poor, uneducated people with bad lifestyles do not put into the system what they take out
Solutions?
There are none. The best trade-off is for insurance to only cover catastrophic surgery and medical care and for everything else to be paid out of pocket. Pre-existing condition and unhealthy people apply for tax deductible medical care. (Pay zero taxes to offset medical costs)
>>155569
Part
>Pre-existing condition and unhealthy people apply for tax deductible medical care. (Pay zero taxes to offset medical costs)
If you're already working class, or you lose your job because of your condition, tax deductions will often be insufficient to allow one to pay full price out of pocket.
The ACa was an all around workable and effective solution.
If the contention is just irresponsible people benefitting disproportionately, I think the solution on that end is just improving nutrition and education and building into the system ways to curb abuse
>>155578
The affordable Care act tripled my insurance premiums in my state (Az). If you think that's acceptable then you're clueless.
>>155547
If the prices were high out of necessity instead of "because we can" then Americans wouldn't be paying more than other countries do for the exact same drugs.
>>155433
They'll stop calling it wealth transfer when the right stops calling welfare entitlements.
>>155547
Then why not take the Trump approach. Tell them to fuck themselves and renegotiate the terms so that the American tax payer isn't footing the bill for the bloody world.This in turn causes research costs to be fairly spread out across the nations but at least the US isn't being raped up the ass anymore so a CEO can afford their 10th yahat.
>>155603
Other countries pay less because America shoulders the burden of development cost. India for example gets cheap drugs because their government gets to negotiate with providers and due to various rules/treaties regarding being a 3rd world nation allowing for cheap treatment (college text books is another case of this happening).
First world nations like say Britain or Canada also negotiate with big Pharma to get cheap drugs. However it comes at the cost of them having a much narrower selection of drugs and longer wait for them compared to the US. This is where you start to hear those horror stories about inadequate care come up.
You want to fix the system, then do something like >>155604 where the problem of medicine is forced into becoming a global issue rather than a country by country one.
>>155606
>Other countries pay less because America shoulders the burden
>he actually believes this
Yeah go ahead and keep believing in American exceptionalism instead of accepting the truth that the government and corporations are wringing you dry just because they can.
>>155609
>Facts by political experts and research institutions
>American exceptionalism
I thought fact denial was Trump's forte. Instead of watching TNN 24/7 try something like c-span or anything that actually involves people who know how the fuck the system actually works for your information sources.
>>154800
>they would have to work with the other part
is it happening?
>>155005
>You can't treat conservatives like shit, mock them, ridicule their values and lifestyle and then whine that they need to be more consilatory towards your progressive ideology when they come into power.
This is some advanced projection.
>>155147
Comprehensive, affordable, reliable insurance for the average American is what we had. The original figure of 47 million uninsured sounds like a lot, but that, if accurate, is 15% of the population. How much of that percent decided health insurance was simply not a priority given their needs and how much it would cost them to be covered? How much of that percent were eligible for government assistance but simply never signed up for whatever reason? I know I am one in the first category, and I suspect there were a lot of people who saw it similarly. The reality is that we can not cover everyone without making it much more expensive overall, and that is not the fault of evil companies out to make a profit. There are a lot of factors which make our health care more expensive, and injecting government mandates will only add to that.
>>158732
That is absolutely not what we had. People were getting dropped or denied for preexisting conditions every day.
>>158788
As they should be. When you are retarded enough to wait until you are pregnant or half dead to buy insurance you should be denied.
Buy it while you are still in top health. You won't be denied and you will pay way less.
That's how insurance works. If you ban all discrimination against all pre existing conditions then you in fact ban insurance because it's impossible to afford.
>>155033
>strong borders and for gay immigrant Mexicans to get healthcare when they need it without forcing themselves into debt.
Actually this.
It's bizarre how hard it is to tell people that you both support immigration and border control. It's not a no immigration or endless immigration argument.
I do think 'the wall' and the low-hanging fruit ICE raids are stupid though. If you really wanted to slow or stop immigration you'd have ICE heavily fining and targeting businesses that hire illegals
>>155036
Except there are means-tested medical procedures and care that contribute to long term health.
That's why Medicaid, statistically, has significantly decreased long-term disability and later health care problems by providing access to care for pretty much any american child.
>>155349
>Corporations
>support society
top kek