Please vote for Democrats, for my kid’s sake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP your story is very moving. A sick child is a heartbreaking situation. No one wants a child to suffer, and I wish your child the best possible outcome.

There are several questions that need to be answered with this example:

1. If healthcare is an entitlement, are we entitled to have any and all treatment that we want? There is a difference between giving any and all treatment and alleviating suffering.

2. Resources ARE limited, even with pooled resources from taxes. Resources are limited by merely the number of hospital beds available, the time and appointment slots for specialists and other providers, the amount of money for equipment, facilities, and medication. Who decides the cost/benefit of treatment? Who decides who gets priority treatment?

As an aside, the portable care act, passed years ago, insures patients will not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions if continuous coverage is maintained. It is very important that consumers are aware of their rights and obligations in using and maintaining health insurance.

I think people imagine that Medicare for all means you will get any treatment that you desire at any time. That is not what it means. In fact, Medicare for all will have a strict formulary, strict requirements for qualifying for certain treatments, strict requirements for accessing specialty care, and cost/benefit analysis driven care. OP, your daughter would likely benefit from such a plan, but there will be other patients who would be losers.

OP, understandably, you want the best for your daughter, but a planning a comprehensive healthcare strategy can’t be accomplished through an emotional lense. FWIW, I am republican who wants some form of high deductible universal catastrophic coverage for all and a separate government pool for high risk coverage, for patients like your daughter. I also think insurance should be uncoupled from employment for greater coverage security.

Obamacare was very ambitious and got some things right, but it also is very flawed. It is flawed in it’s cost shifting. It is flawed in it’s failure to control costs. So, as part of a community, OP, I want your daughter to have care. However, I do not believe Obamacare achieves care equity or is the best use of our community resources.

You’re right, in a Medicare for all system care is rationed. That means a dr determines the amount you get.

Pretty sure all the populations with universal healthcare and healthier populations are managing Better than us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As an aside, the portable care act, passed years ago, insures patients will not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions if continuous coverage is maintained. It is very important that consumers are aware of their rights and obligations in using and maintaining health insurance.


OP, understandably, you want the best for your daughter, but a planning a comprehensive healthcare strategy can’t be accomplished through an emotional lense. FWIW, I am republican who wants some form of high deductible universal catastrophic coverage for all and a separate government pool for high risk coverage, for patients like your daughter. I also think insurance should be uncoupled from employment for greater coverage security.

The lawsuit against the ACA which is making its way through the courts may actually impact the earlier HIPPA regulations. The ACA regulations incorporated and expanded the HIPPA regulation, so if the ACA is overturned, even those with employer based coverage may be at risk for losing coverage for their "preexisting" conditions.

Universal catastrophic coverage is not a bad idea. I wonder why Republicans in Congress aren't seriously advocating for it? I'll just leave that question there.

We're in MA and I thank God for it everyday. We've got Romneycare as a backstop. You know, the thing that is like the ACA, but was put into place by a blue state Republican and thus isn't equated with Venezuela.

OP....only the best for your child. I wish I lived in a state that had some real political clout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP your story is very moving. A sick child is a heartbreaking situation. No one wants a child to suffer, and I wish your child the best possible outcome.

There are several questions that need to be answered with this example:

1. If healthcare is an entitlement, are we entitled to have any and all treatment that we want? There is a difference between giving any and all treatment and alleviating suffering.

2. Resources ARE limited, even with pooled resources from taxes. Resources are limited by merely the number of hospital beds available, the time and appointment slots for specialists and other providers, the amount of money for equipment, facilities, and medication. Who decides the cost/benefit of treatment? Who decides who gets priority treatment?

As an aside, the portable care act, passed years ago, insures patients will not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions if continuous coverage is maintained. It is very important that consumers are aware of their rights and obligations in using and maintaining health insurance.

I think people imagine that Medicare for all means you will get any treatment that you desire at any time. That is not what it means. In fact, Medicare for all will have a strict formulary, strict requirements for qualifying for certain treatments, strict requirements for accessing specialty care, and cost/benefit analysis driven care. OP, your daughter would likely benefit from such a plan, but there will be other patients who would be losers.

OP, understandably, you want the best for your daughter, but a planning a comprehensive healthcare strategy can’t be accomplished through an emotional lense. FWIW, I am republican who wants some form of high deductible universal catastrophic coverage for all and a separate government pool for high risk coverage, for patients like your daughter. I also think insurance should be uncoupled from employment for greater coverage security.

Obamacare was very ambitious and got some things right, but it also is very flawed. It is flawed in it’s cost shifting. It is flawed in it’s failure to control costs. So, as part of a community, OP, I want your daughter to have care. However, I do not believe Obamacare achieves care equity or is the best use of our community resources.

Pp, I appreciate your response, but I wonder when all these great Republican ideas will be passed. I have done my part- I pay for insurance and I always have. Now I have Republican legislators who want to take that away. Don’t show me your preferred ideas about healthcare- show me the legislation. Obamacare is what is standing between me and financial ruin, so your perfect is the enemy of the good objections do little to convince me.

Also, the separate government pool idea has been thoroughly debunked by people much smarter about policy than me- show me the legislation because why argue about something that isn’t going to happen? Obamacare is inadequate but it is real. Other ideas- not sure why they are worth discussing if Republican legislators won’t bother debating them.

Also, come on. Sometimes you can not maintain continuous insurance coverage. I don’t understand why anyone would think this is a reasonable requirement. What if someone with an illness simply loses their job?

Further, as you state, costs are out of control. My daughter had an 8 hour surgery- approximately $30-40,000. 5 days in the children’s hospital? $70,000. Why does it cost more than $10,000 a night to sit in a hospital room? Why do you think rationing is a bad thing? Rationing is already happening, but it’s people with lousy insurance who are taking the bulk of the burden. Don’t worry- the hospital was no where near full, and already have to wait several months for surgery for many reasons. This system is not working. We would not have to be so scared of “rationing” if costs made any sense at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP your story is very moving. A sick child is a heartbreaking situation. No one wants a child to suffer, and I wish your child the best possible outcome.

There are several questions that need to be answered with this example:

1. If healthcare is an entitlement, are we entitled to have any and all treatment that we want? There is a difference between giving any and all treatment and alleviating suffering.

2. Resources ARE limited, even with pooled resources from taxes. Resources are limited by merely the number of hospital beds available, the time and appointment slots for specialists and other providers, the amount of money for equipment, facilities, and medication. Who decides the cost/benefit of treatment? Who decides who gets priority treatment?

As an aside, the portable care act, passed years ago, insures patients will not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions if continuous coverage is maintained. It is very important that consumers are aware of their rights and obligations in using and maintaining health insurance.

I think people imagine that Medicare for all means you will get any treatment that you desire at any time. That is not what it means. In fact, Medicare for all will have a strict formulary, strict requirements for qualifying for certain treatments, strict requirements for accessing specialty care, and cost/benefit analysis driven care. OP, your daughter would likely benefit from such a plan, but there will be other patients who would be losers.

OP, understandably, you want the best for your daughter, but a planning a comprehensive healthcare strategy can’t be accomplished through an emotional lense. FWIW, I am republican who wants some form of high deductible universal catastrophic coverage for all and a separate government pool for high risk coverage, for patients like your daughter. I also think insurance should be uncoupled from employment for greater coverage security.

Obamacare was very ambitious and got some things right, but it also is very flawed. It is flawed in it’s cost shifting. It is flawed in it’s failure to control costs. So, as part of a community, OP, I want your daughter to have care. However, I do not believe Obamacare achieves care equity or is the best use of our community resources.

Pp, I appreciate your response, but I wonder when all these great Republican ideas will be passed. I have done my part- I pay for insurance and I always have. Now I have Republican legislators who want to take that away. Don’t show me your preferred ideas about healthcare- show me the legislation. Obamacare is what is standing between me and financial ruin, so your perfect is the enemy of the good objections do little to convince me.

Also, the separate government pool idea has been thoroughly debunked by people much smarter about policy than me- show me the legislation because why argue about something that isn’t going to happen? Obamacare is inadequate but it is real. Other ideas- not sure why they are worth discussing if Republican legislators won’t bother debating them.

Also, come on. Sometimes you can not maintain continuous insurance coverage. I don’t understand why anyone would think this is a reasonable requirement. What if someone with an illness simply loses their job?

Further, as you state, costs are out of control. My daughter had an 8 hour surgery- approximately $30-40,000. 5 days in the children’s hospital? $70,000. Why does it cost more than $10,000 a night to sit in a hospital room? Why do you think rationing is a bad thing? Rationing is already happening, but it’s people with lousy insurance who are taking the bulk of the burden. Don’t worry- the hospital was no where near full, and already have to wait several months for surgery for many reasons. This system is not working. We would not have to be so scared of “rationing” if costs made any sense at all.

Your further comments show why this system is broken. We are using resources to try to provide access to healthcare for everyone when it costs $70,000 a pop for one surgery for one patient, for example. Obamacare did not control those costs, so we are depleting all of our resources by sticking with this failed patch-worked plan, which you insist we must because, well, you have your coverage. You state exactly why I think Obamacare does not provide equity and cost-shifts - the people with lousy insurance who are now “underinsured” with their new expensive Obamacare plans.

High risk pools have been used in states prior to Obamacare, in fact, in the northeast.

If employment and insurance were uncoupled, losing a job would have less of an impact on continuous coverage. As you said, everyone has unplanned emergencies, however, a process for emergency coverage in those circumstances could be implemented.

Hospitals not being full is not what you think. An empty bed is not empty because there are not patients. It is empty because there is not the right kind of staff to staff it. Hospitals become “full” when all their staff and resources are utilized, not literally when every physical bed has a patient.

Repeal and replace might be better termed as repair and revise. Regardless, both Democrats and Republicans need to be working together. Healthcare requires two major reforms to be functional: cost control at both the institutional side and on the consumer side. Consumers of healthcare have some responsibility in this also, and while it may not seem important, a 10% reduction in overall costs due to controlling preventable disease frees billions of dollars of resources. Obamacare is simply not sustainable in it’s current form.

[Anonymous]

Pp, you didn’t read my response: don’t act like the Republicans have solutions.

They don’t.

I can debate legislation. I can’t debate disingenuous ideas that have no basis in any possible policies.

You’re right- anyone with a health concern does NOT want to lose their healthcare. You might be surprised how many people that actually is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp, you didn’t read my response: don’t act like the Republicans have solutions.

They don’t.

I can debate legislation. I can’t debate disingenuous ideas that have no basis in any possible policies.

You’re right- anyone with a health concern does NOT want to lose their healthcare. You might be surprised how many people that actually is.

What I saidis we need bipartisan solutions. Obamacare is broken. Just because you are covered today does not mean Obamacare will have the resources to cover you two years from now in it’s current form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, you didn’t read my response: don’t act like the Republicans have solutions.

They don’t.

I can debate legislation. I can’t debate disingenuous ideas that have no basis in any possible policies.

You’re right- anyone with a health concern does NOT want to lose their healthcare. You might be surprised how many people that actually is.

What I saidis we need bipartisan solutions. Obamacare is broken. Just because you are covered today does not mean Obamacare will have the resources to cover you two years from now in it’s current form.

That’s exactly right. So I hope that you are voting a straight democratic ticket since divided government is our best hope of getting any reasonable reform.

Are you?

[Anonymous]

Not the pp, but I will be voting a straight Democrat ticket for the first time in my life.

I know too many people who will be cut off from insurance if Republicans have their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, you didn’t read my response: don’t act like the Republicans have solutions.

They don’t.

I can debate legislation. I can’t debate disingenuous ideas that have no basis in any possible policies.

You’re right- anyone with a health concern does NOT want to lose their healthcare. You might be surprised how many people that actually is.

What I saidis we need bipartisan solutions. Obamacare is broken. Just because you are covered today does not mean Obamacare will have the resources to cover you two years from now in it’s current form.

That’s exactly right. So I hope that you are voting a straight democratic ticket since divided government is our best hope of getting any reasonable reform.

Are you?

What exactly is the Democratic plan for reform?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, you didn’t read my response: don’t act like the Republicans have solutions.

They don’t.

I can debate legislation. I can’t debate disingenuous ideas that have no basis in any possible policies.

You’re right- anyone with a health concern does NOT want to lose their healthcare. You might be surprised how many people that actually is.

What I saidis we need bipartisan solutions. Obamacare is broken. Just because you are covered today does not mean Obamacare will have the resources to cover you two years from now in it’s current form.

That’s exactly right. So I hope that you are voting a straight democratic ticket since divided government is our best hope of getting any reasonable reform.

Are you?

What exactly is the Democratic plan for reform?

Here is the 2016 Democratic platform: https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/

Go crazy, read the whole thing!

[Anonymous]

Unless medicine in the US becomes completely not-for-profit, a universal plan is not possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, you didn’t read my response: don’t act like the Republicans have solutions.

They don’t.

I can debate legislation. I can’t debate disingenuous ideas that have no basis in any possible policies.

You’re right- anyone with a health concern does NOT want to lose their healthcare. You might be surprised how many people that actually is.

What I saidis we need bipartisan solutions. Obamacare is broken. Just because you are covered today does not mean Obamacare will have the resources to cover you two years from now in it’s current form.

That’s exactly right. So I hope that you are voting a straight democratic ticket since divided government is our best hope of getting any reasonable reform.

Are you?

What exactly is the Democratic plan for reform?

Here is the 2016 Democratic platform: https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/

Go crazy, read the whole thing!

The only crazy is to believe that Democrats can implement their platform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP your story is very moving. A sick child is a heartbreaking situation. No one wants a child to suffer, and I wish your child the best possible outcome.

There are several questions that need to be answered with this example:

1. If healthcare is an entitlement, are we entitled to have any and all treatment that we want? There is a difference between giving any and all treatment and alleviating suffering.

2. Resources ARE limited, even with pooled resources from taxes. Resources are limited by merely the number of hospital beds available, the time and appointment slots for specialists and other providers, the amount of money for equipment, facilities, and medication. Who decides the cost/benefit of treatment? Who decides who gets priority treatment?

As an aside, the portable care act, passed years ago, insures patients will not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions if continuous coverage is maintained. It is very important that consumers are aware of their rights and obligations in using and maintaining health insurance.

I think people imagine that Medicare for all means you will get any treatment that you desire at any time. That is not what it means. In fact, Medicare for all will have a strict formulary, strict requirements for qualifying for certain treatments, strict requirements for accessing specialty care, and cost/benefit analysis driven care. OP, your daughter would likely benefit from such a plan, but there will be other patients who would be losers.

OP, understandably, you want the best for your daughter, but a planning a comprehensive healthcare strategy can’t be accomplished through an emotional lense. FWIW, I am republican who wants some form of high deductible universal catastrophic coverage for all and a separate government pool for high risk coverage, for patients like your daughter. I also think insurance should be uncoupled from employment for greater coverage security.

Obamacare was very ambitious and got some things right, but it also is very flawed. It is flawed in it’s cost shifting. It is flawed in it’s failure to control costs. So, as part of a community, OP, I want your daughter to have care. However, I do not believe Obamacare achieves care equity or is the best use of our community resources.

Fellow republican here who has been engaged in the "entitlement mindset" discussion.

In general I don't believe "a program organized by the federal government" is the right solution - it is the solution of last resort. I'm open to the argument that federally managed healthcare is indeed now the solution of last resort, but I've not yet see any convincing arguments. People who describe universal healthcare systems of other countries paint rosy images but does not acknowledge the short comings of those systems, such as UK's system being so inadequate as to necessitate secondary private insurance, or that Japan in general only provides palliative care for terminal illnesses.

That said, I too support some type of universal catastrophic coverage program that is centrally managed. A catastrophic coverage provides a "last resort" type protection between the affected families and absolute financial ruin.

As for decoupling insurance and employment - unfortunately I am not sure how this can be accomplished. Employers offer subsidized health insurance as part of the employees' compensation package. If a decoupling were to occur, what would that look like? Would employers be barred from providing health insurance coverage to their employees? If so, then what happens to the money that was previously spent by companies to subsidize health plans - it was more or less equally applied to all employees, so would employers then be required to pay some amount to employees in lieu of this benefit? Kind of like a health insurance voucher?

That employers are willingly offering insurance programs for their employees is in reaction to natural market forces: a group of people is organized together and creates a risk pool. I am not sure that there are any other ways that risk pools are naturally formed like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: taking “other people’s money.” This characterization of taxation for the public good is so toxic. Your money is not your “freedom.” The government has the right to tax you for the good of the public. Your taxes pay for roads you never use, research for diseases that never affect you, wars that have nothing to do with your safety. But somehow paying for healthcare is “immoral.”

This dummy is the same guy who used to call taxes “rape,” or the dummy who kept going on and on that universal healthcare was unconstitutional. Now his bizarre argument is that it’s immoral. Do you even understand what moral means?

My money is not my freedom, I agree, my money is my personal property. And yes the government has been granted broad powers by the US Constitution to tax. Similarly the US government has broad powers to spend under the "general welfare" clause. All of this is right. Certainly my taxes have paid for roads I do not use, and paid for research that I don't directly enjoy. The difference here is that many of these programs were put in place with the rationale that these contribute to a greater good benefit the society as a whole. No roads were built because someone claimed "I need a road and someone else needs to pay for it". No scientific research was done by claiming "this discovery needs to be funded by someone else". Yet we have posters in this thread arguing that we need health care laws because other people need to pay for their health care costs. It's not immoral for the government to pay for health care, it's immoral for someone to think that they are entitled to other people's money or labor to pay for their own healthcare.

Look, maybe it's all a big misunderstanding, maybe people on this thread *DONT* feel they are entitled to other people's money. They just want the nation to come together to see that this is for the greater good and do it out of a sense of collective wish to help each other. But then, why so many posts arguing against me when I questioned the sense of entitlement expressed by PPs?

The OP is doing PRECISELY what you "want" people to do. She is urging others to come together and vote for people who will implement the greater good. Your insistence that people feel they are "entitled to other people's money" is just bizarre and counter-factual.
No one is suggesting the OP go steal money form her neighbor to pay for her daughter's medical costs. People are suggesting that we, the people, vote in a way to ensure the greater good for all people. (Because yes, PP, even you and your family will one day need medical care.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP your story is very moving. A sick child is a heartbreaking situation. No one wants a child to suffer, and I wish your child the best possible outcome.

There are several questions that need to be answered with this example:

1. If healthcare is an entitlement, are we entitled to have any and all treatment that we want? There is a difference between giving any and all treatment and alleviating suffering.

2. Resources ARE limited, even with pooled resources from taxes. Resources are limited by merely the number of hospital beds available, the time and appointment slots for specialists and other providers, the amount of money for equipment, facilities, and medication. Who decides the cost/benefit of treatment? Who decides who gets priority treatment?

As an aside, the portable care act, passed years ago, insures patients will not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions if continuous coverage is maintained. It is very important that consumers are aware of their rights and obligations in using and maintaining health insurance.

I think people imagine that Medicare for all means you will get any treatment that you desire at any time. That is not what it means. In fact, Medicare for all will have a strict formulary, strict requirements for qualifying for certain treatments, strict requirements for accessing specialty care, and cost/benefit analysis driven care. OP, your daughter would likely benefit from such a plan, but there will be other patients who would be losers.

OP, understandably, you want the best for your daughter, but a planning a comprehensive healthcare strategy can’t be accomplished through an emotional lense. FWIW, I am republican who wants some form of high deductible universal catastrophic coverage for all and a separate government pool for high risk coverage, for patients like your daughter. I also think insurance should be uncoupled from employment for greater coverage security.

Obamacare was very ambitious and got some things right, but it also is very flawed. It is flawed in it’s cost shifting. It is flawed in it’s failure to control costs. So, as part of a community, OP, I want your daughter to have care. However, I do not believe Obamacare achieves care equity or is the best use of our community resources.

Fellow republican here who has been engaged in the "entitlement mindset" discussion.

In general I don't believe "a program organized by the federal government" is the right solution - it is the solution of last resort. I'm open to the argument that federally managed healthcare is indeed now the solution of last resort, but I've not yet see any convincing arguments. People who describe universal healthcare systems of other countries paint rosy images but does not acknowledge the short comings of those systems, such as UK's system being so inadequate as to necessitate secondary private insurance, or that Japan in general only provides palliative care for terminal illnesses.

That said, I too support some type of universal catastrophic coverage program that is centrally managed. A catastrophic coverage provides a "last resort" type protection between the affected families and absolute financial ruin.

As for decoupling insurance and employment - unfortunately I am not sure how this can be accomplished. Employers offer subsidized health insurance as part of the employees' compensation package. If a decoupling were to occur, what would that look like? Would employers be barred from providing health insurance coverage to their employees? If so, then what happens to the money that was previously spent by companies to subsidize health plans - it was more or less equally applied to all employees, so would employers then be required to pay some amount to employees in lieu of this benefit? Kind of like a health insurance voucher?

That employers are willingly offering insurance programs for their employees is in reaction to natural market forces: a group of people is organized together and creates a risk pool. I am not sure that there are any other ways that risk pools are naturally formed like this.

OP here- there is so much wrong with your argument but here is the problem with voting for Republicans:

Lofty ideas are just that- lofty ideas. An incomplete solution has been implemented, Obamacare. You say costs are out of control- that’s not because of Obamacare, that is an existing problem that has actually been slowed by Obamacare- again Obamacare has slowed the increase in medical costs. My insurance was getting significantly more expensive every year before Obamacare, and has not since Obamacare was implemented. I am a regular middle class person and my healthcare is from a regular office job.

And again, what is the point of a debate without legislation? We have total Republican government control- if they aren’t coming up with healthcare solutions now they never will.

Give me a reason not to vote for a Democratic ticket across the board, especially with my circumstances.