Please vote for Democrats, for my kid’s sake

[Anonymous]

There needs to be more options for health insurance

Obamacare actually increased insurance costs for many people because it covers stuff that many people need

Health Insurance should be more like Auto Insurance you select the level of coverage you actually need

As far as preexisting conditions are concerned all the bills never kicked people off as long as they didn't have a lapse in coverage of more than I think 6 months which makes sense and solves the free rider problem

[Anonymous]

ugh that many people don't actually need

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be more options for health insurance

Obamacare actually increased insurance costs for many people because it covers stuff that many people need

Health Insurance should be more like Auto Insurance you select the level of coverage you actually need

As far as preexisting conditions are concerned all the bills never kicked people off as long as they didn't have a lapse in coverage of more than I think 6 months which makes sense and solves the free rider problem

Overall Obamacare slowed healthcare cost increases and in some cases caused a decrease in costs. This means that people are paying more but at a slower rate than if the government does nothing, which is what Republicans want.

[Anonymous]

Also pp you are not a car, you are a human being and the auto insurance model is not appropriate. This is so ridiculously obvious I can’t even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be more options for health insurance

Obamacare actually increased insurance costs for many people because it covers stuff that many people need

Health Insurance should be more like Auto Insurance you select the level of coverage you actually need

As far as preexisting conditions are concerned all the bills never kicked people off as long as they didn't have a lapse in coverage of more than I think 6 months which makes sense and solves the free rider problem

This is such an awful comparison. What happens when you get cancer, but you bought cheap "coverage" that doesn't include cancer? Either you die in misery (I don't want to live in a country like that....especially when we are the richest country in the world) or you leave the hospital/doctors to eat the cost of your care and they pass along those costs to me (the scenario being proposed by the GOP)?

How about we just make it a statutory requirement that all plans cover cancer? That makes it cheaper for everyone in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you should vote for Democrats because that is what you believe. I am only asking that you are open to working across the aisle. The democratic plan for universal single payer coverage is a pipe dream and a myth. It sounds wonderful, but it is unworkable and unsustainable in a for profit health system. Ironically, the layered implementation of Obamacare was designed to fully take effect after he left office, which in my opinion, was not an accident, considering the financial reality of premiums vs. costs never added up. Obamacare will blow up in less than five years. Healthcare will ravenously devour our country’s financial prosperity at both extremes. Not having enough care destroys our country’s best resource, the general health and well being of our population, while having too much sucks up too great of a proportion of our country’s wealth and productivity, stunting economic growth and opportunities for the same population. We want the same outcome, affordable healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure where the disagreement is. I was talking about things in general and you are focused on your specific situation, an anecdote. It does not follow that there is a broad general problem associated with voting for Republicans because you in particular have benefited from Obamacare. There were plenty wrong with Obamacare, which is why during the 2016 election the Republicans ran on repealing and replacing Obamacare while few Democrats made vocal defense of it.

I too am very frustrated with the Republican lack of success with repealing Obamacare in whole, it's part of the reason that Republicans are now on the defensive with regards to healthcare issues. I can point fingers and say that grand standing you-know-who ruined it for the rest of us, but I'm not going to dwell on that. If Republicans had put forward a good solid plan then they would not have depended on a 1-vote margin to get things done.

I'm not here to tell you how to vote, but to debate the merit of ideas. I also don't like the concept of voting based on one issue, but I understand that people have different priorities and respect their individual choice. I think what we can agree on is that people should make every effort to vote, we may disagree on the issues but I hope every one of us exercise our duty to vote, and that is not a lofty idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be more options for health insurance

Obamacare actually increased insurance costs for many people because it covers stuff that many people need

Health Insurance should be more like Auto Insurance you select the level of coverage you actually need

As far as preexisting conditions are concerned all the bills never kicked people off as long as they didn't have a lapse in coverage of more than I think 6 months which makes sense and solves the free rider problem

This is such an awful comparison. What happens when you get cancer, but you bought cheap "coverage" that doesn't include cancer? Either you die in misery (I don't want to live in a country like that....especially when we are the richest country in the world) or you leave the hospital/doctors to eat the cost of your care and they pass along those costs to me (the scenario being proposed by the GOP)?

How about we just make it a statutory requirement that all plans cover cancer? That makes it cheaper for everyone in the long run.

And there is another issue here too pp- comprehensive coverage can often catch small health problems before they become “big” problems. The Republican posters above are proposing catastrophic coverage- hello it’s much cheaper to treat health conditions BEFORE they become “catastrophic.” I would rather that the diabetic be covered BEFORE he needs to amputate his foot, so that we never reach that point.

So what do we have- humans need health insurance for minor AND catastrophic health issues. What’s the word for that? Oh yeah UNIVERSAL coverage! I think that was the point of some law what was it called? Oh yeah OBAMACARE!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be more options for health insurance

Obamacare actually increased insurance costs for many people because it covers stuff that many people need

Health Insurance should be more like Auto Insurance you select the level of coverage you actually need

As far as preexisting conditions are concerned all the bills never kicked people off as long as they didn't have a lapse in coverage of more than I think 6 months which makes sense and solves the free rider problem

This is such an awful comparison. What happens when you get cancer, but you bought cheap "coverage" that doesn't include cancer? Either you die in misery (I don't want to live in a country like that....especially when we are the richest country in the world) or you leave the hospital/doctors to eat the cost of your care and they pass along those costs to me (the scenario being proposed by the GOP)?

How about we just make it a statutory requirement that all plans cover cancer? That makes it cheaper for everyone in the long run.

This is rather silly. Typically healthcare coverage levels has to do with provider network access, procedures/drugs, initial deductibles, co-pays, and maximum lifetime benefits. Are there any health insurance that excludes cancer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be more options for health insurance

Obamacare actually increased insurance costs for many people because it covers stuff that many people need

Health Insurance should be more like Auto Insurance you select the level of coverage you actually need

As far as preexisting conditions are concerned all the bills never kicked people off as long as they didn't have a lapse in coverage of more than I think 6 months which makes sense and solves the free rider problem

This is such an awful comparison. What happens when you get cancer, but you bought cheap "coverage" that doesn't include cancer? Either you die in misery (I don't want to live in a country like that....especially when we are the richest country in the world) or you leave the hospital/doctors to eat the cost of your care and they pass along those costs to me (the scenario being proposed by the GOP)?

How about we just make it a statutory requirement that all plans cover cancer? That makes it cheaper for everyone in the long run.

And there is another issue here too pp- comprehensive coverage can often catch small health problems before they become “big” problems. The Republican posters above are proposing catastrophic coverage- hello it’s much cheaper to treat health conditions BEFORE they become “catastrophic.” I would rather that the diabetic be covered BEFORE he needs to amputate his foot, so that we never reach that point.

So what do we have- humans need health insurance for minor AND catastrophic health issues. What’s the word for that? Oh yeah UNIVERSAL coverage! I think that was the point of some law what was it called? Oh yeah OBAMACARE!!

If people really believed in the benefit of catching small things before they turned into big things, we would not have the obesity problem (i.e. type 2 diabetes) of more than half of adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be more options for health insurance

Obamacare actually increased insurance costs for many people because it covers stuff that many people need

Health Insurance should be more like Auto Insurance you select the level of coverage you actually need

As far as preexisting conditions are concerned all the bills never kicked people off as long as they didn't have a lapse in coverage of more than I think 6 months which makes sense and solves the free rider problem

This is such an awful comparison. What happens when you get cancer, but you bought cheap "coverage" that doesn't include cancer? Either you die in misery (I don't want to live in a country like that....especially when we are the richest country in the world) or you leave the hospital/doctors to eat the cost of your care and they pass along those costs to me (the scenario being proposed by the GOP)?

How about we just make it a statutory requirement that all plans cover cancer? That makes it cheaper for everyone in the long run.

And there is another issue here too pp- comprehensive coverage can often catch small health problems before they become “big” problems. The Republican posters above are proposing catastrophic coverage- hello it’s much cheaper to treat health conditions BEFORE they become “catastrophic.” I would rather that the diabetic be covered BEFORE he needs to amputate his foot, so that we never reach that point.

So what do we have- humans need health insurance for minor AND catastrophic health issues. What’s the word for that? Oh yeah UNIVERSAL coverage! I think that was the point of some law what was it called? Oh yeah OBAMACARE!!

If people really believed in the benefit of catching small things before they turned into big things, we would not have the obesity problem (i.e. type 2 diabetes) of more than half of adults.

Most countries and cultures do not believe in health insurance nor preventative care, including all our central emericsn illegal immigrants. They don’t want to pay monthly premiums just in case they get sick or have an accident. That’s silly! And a waste of money!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be more options for health insurance

Obamacare actually increased insurance costs for many people because it covers stuff that many people need

Health Insurance should be more like Auto Insurance you select the level of coverage you actually need

As far as preexisting conditions are concerned all the bills never kicked people off as long as they didn't have a lapse in coverage of more than I think 6 months which makes sense and solves the free rider problem

This is such an awful comparison. What happens when you get cancer, but you bought cheap "coverage" that doesn't include cancer? Either you die in misery (I don't want to live in a country like that....especially when we are the richest country in the world) or you leave the hospital/doctors to eat the cost of your care and they pass along those costs to me (the scenario being proposed by the GOP)?

How about we just make it a statutory requirement that all plans cover cancer? That makes it cheaper for everyone in the long run.

Or you go to an experimental program at NIH, a university hospital, or cancer research center. The best care is there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be more options for health insurance

Obamacare actually increased insurance costs for many people because it covers stuff that many people need

Health Insurance should be more like Auto Insurance you select the level of coverage you actually need

As far as preexisting conditions are concerned all the bills never kicked people off as long as they didn't have a lapse in coverage of more than I think 6 months which makes sense and solves the free rider problem

This is such an awful comparison. What happens when you get cancer, but you bought cheap "coverage" that doesn't include cancer? Either you die in misery (I don't want to live in a country like that....especially when we are the richest country in the world) or you leave the hospital/doctors to eat the cost of your care and they pass along those costs to me (the scenario being proposed by the GOP)?

How about we just make it a statutory requirement that all plans cover cancer? That makes it cheaper for everyone in the long run.

Or you go to an experimental program at NIH, a university hospital, or cancer research center. The best care is there

Right, because they accept everyone.

Better plan: Thoughts and prayers. Free and it works if God likes you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be more options for health insurance

Obamacare actually increased insurance costs for many people because it covers stuff that many people need

Health Insurance should be more like Auto Insurance you select the level of coverage you actually need

As far as preexisting conditions are concerned all the bills never kicked people off as long as they didn't have a lapse in coverage of more than I think 6 months which makes sense and solves the free rider problem

This is such an awful comparison. What happens when you get cancer, but you bought cheap "coverage" that doesn't include cancer? Either you die in misery (I don't want to live in a country like that....especially when we are the richest country in the world) or you leave the hospital/doctors to eat the cost of your care and they pass along those costs to me (the scenario being proposed by the GOP)?

How about we just make it a statutory requirement that all plans cover cancer? That makes it cheaper for everyone in the long run.

This is rather silly. Typically healthcare coverage levels has to do with provider network access, procedures/drugs, initial deductibles, co-pays, and maximum lifetime benefits. Are there any health insurance that excludes cancer?

Not right now, because of OBAMACARE.

Before that, cancer patients were routinely denied coverage because the insurer claimed their cancer was a pre-existing condition.

Read/watch "The Rainmaker" -- all about how insurers used to simply deny every claim until the plaintiff died.

[Anonymous]

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

Agree. And why not make it not for profit? You can be employed by a NFP and still make good money (doctors, nurses, surgeons, etc.)