Repealing and replacing Obamacare: What kind of healthcare plan do you support?

You do not live in a nation-State, rather you live in a federal republic and each State has diverse economies and demographics.

Healthcare costs vary wildly by State.

Child-birth is a great example:

http://transform.childbirthconnecti...03/national-maternity-payment-comparison1.pdf

 

That's interesting.

My father had company-provided group health insurance and so did I during my career, and it worked out just fine. Either one of us could have simply not signed up for it, but we would have been fools not to. From having experienced this myself, I hold the opinion that I would like to see all employers do this, and that way all but the unemployed would be covered. That would just leave it to we working people to pay our taxes and cover the unemployed, which we already do through medicaid.

 

And what laws are you talking about? Common law? Statutory law? Ordinances or codes? Administrative regulations or Federal Titles?

I would say from your comments, you understand little about the law. While common law is a stern master, there is always a remedy in equity for properly plead causes of action. Sometimes one needs to look beyond the obvious to find the equitable solution. But this is an area that fools dare not tread as the sharks have huge appetites.

 

My own. I'm responsible for myself and my family.

Nobody else is of my concern.

If you wish to look after the well being of others, then donate your discretionary income to charity, and let me do what I please with my own.

 

Again, that is not what our current government is planning. Our new government is looking to replace Obamacare, the new president says he will pass a replacement in the coming weeks. We still don't know what this replacement looks like, so the purpose of this thread is to discuss what kind of replacement plan would you support

Well fist off, Venezuelan doesn't have a capitalist economy to be able to afford a sufficient healthcare system. People are not covered equally by any means

Second, I have yet to express what healthcare system I support, the purpose of this thread was to ask other people what kind of replacement plan they support. Instead of sharing what system you support, you decided to attack my non-existing post where I expressed the healthcare system I support.

Third, it is not the doctors who take a loss from accepting people with preexisting conditions under the current healthcare system (Obamacare), it is the insurance companies. The current law mandates that insurance companies accept people and not charge them more based on preexisting conditions. This is why people are being mandated to buy insurance, to offset the losses for the insurance companies. I should also note that president Trump has made it a promise of his to maintain protection for people with preexisting conditions

and finally, it is not my idea to replace Obamacare with a new national healthcare system, it is president Trump's. The president and congress have promised a replacement plan in the coming weeks, but we still don't know what that looks like. President Trump has said about his replacement that it will protect people with preexisting condition, and he has said “We’re going to have insurance for everybody.There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

So the question is, how do we accomplish all of this, what kind of replacement plan to YOU support?

 

Please stop chopping up my posts...it is aggravating. Just underline what point you are responding to...please?

I missed the point you were trying to make.
Yes healthcare cost very by state, which is why abolishing state lines and instituting a single payer system for healthcare insurance would be beneficial to all.

 

That is an excerpt from the interview I was referring to.

 

Starting an argument with a logical fallacy is determinable to all that follows. Using the stated logic, then I guess it really doesn't matter if your job got shipped to another state. And the companies don't prove anything, Moody's, Standard and Poor's, and other rating companies already do that. Now they register, appoint the insurance commissioner as agent for service and run. Then they hire local agent's as franchises and leave them holding the bag for any shortcomings in the service area. All this does is put the small state run companies out of business as things change that make it harder and harder to compete, courtesy of the state.

Another logical fallacy, please explain just what benefits the states provide as they force themselves in the middle. The middle man always gets a cut but for what? Can't be protection or why are some in this thread about being blocked from taking actions.

I starting to see the pattern here, starting with a fallacy. Even if there were thousands of companies selling insurance people couldn't afford (an over exaggeration obliviously), how can you state the problem is the people that can't afford it. Nothing multiplied by anything remains nothing.

But then you turn again and extol the root of the problem, large group polices as the solution while condemning those that choose not to work as a slave for a mega giant to forever paying a larger share with all probability of diminished services to boot.

A conclusion based on a series of logical fallacies is but a fallacy itself. So why you may claim it to be your opinion, it does not change the fact your opinion is in error.

 

Actually his first statement is a truth unless somehow a new amendment to the constitution was passed while I was busy here and not looking. Also the first part of his second statement is true but the second part is a logical fallacy just based on the first statement.

And just when I thought matters could get no worse, I'm wrong. This fallacy goes all the way to claim the title of non sequitur. Please explain just how that with a stroke of the pen making the issue a non entity to purchase insurance does not completely resolve it.

Surely not the government, they have nothing not stolen from someone else. And I would put good money on the fact it isn't going to be the insurance companies if that politician expects a contribution to keep his job next election. And while I have no doubt that the policy holders would have done a little better without the drain, it's the good old taxpayer that is going to need to bend over and grease up, here it comes.

Resolve what? The only thing resolved was the "stroke of the pen" issue where a stroke if the pen makes it a non issue and that wasn't your take.

 

Virtually every political suggestion on health care fails to recognize the basic issue making insurance a problem.

WHY were (and are) so many people uninsured? Answer- because America has the most expensive health care system in the world, (but not the best) which means the most expensive insurance, which means- people can't afford it. Cost of services and pharmaceuticals is problem number one, and it controls most of the cost of insurance

Healthcare costs have risen at a ridiculous rate. Example- My first son was born in 1963, and I had no insurance. The total cost for prenatal care, doctor and 3-day hospital stay was $250, equal to three weeks of my earnings at age 22 as a grocery clerk. A young man in the same position today might earn $400-500 per week, meaning the equivalent would be a $1500 hospital bill. This is a service that is virtually identical in nature then and now, but today it costs $9700. That means it has increased 650% (6.5X) faster than the rate of inflation of comparable wage..

In the USA, a hip replacement cost around $40,000. In Spain, $7000. In the US, a prescription drug I take cost $5 per pill- but I order from overseas, for $0.23 per pill. That is the real problem.

What if, before we created an insurance plan that fines people, pisses off every doctor and hospital in the nation and actually raises costs for most insureds- why don't we address the costs that are out of control and have made health insurance unaffordable in the first place? Start with lawyers- change the laws to require the loser in lawsuits to pay the legal fees of the other party... eliminating legal extortion, which is a huge industry. Start with laws that require the same level of flawless judgement from lawyers that lawyers say doctors must have, and award massive (comparable) judgments against those who slip. Start with cleaning up the FDA process that makes getting a drug approved cost hundreds millions of dollars and take many years- and according to the lawyers, still approves all kinds of horribly dangerous drugs.

When you have stopped all the cost-inflating BS that the health care industry is saddled with- cost will drop like a rock, and the cost of insurance would go right with it.

Then regulate as is needed- and it won't take much, because it would be affordable in the first place. .

 

People will act accordingly with their wallets. Refuse to pay claims and they'll go elsewhere.

 

So you don't have a driver license? No social security card? No car insurance? Hamilton and his ilk were forcing things down the people's throat even before the ink dried on the last signature.

 

Those that fail to study history are destined to repeat it. Been there, that is one of the reasons we are where we are.

 

Well, Hillary is not in jail so that could be a very real possibility. One lie confirmed, how many more to go?

 

Hmm..how does that work...you've had X Health insurance for ...lets say 4 to 20 years never a late payment...file a major claim, due to an auto accident,being attacked, getting a disease or etc. They deny you, so you shop around then no one will accept you because now you have a pre-existing condition.
You file a complaint to the state your in...but your policy was bought in another state with different laws due to lack of regulations. Uh oh Logistics problem...Lawyers and CEO's having a hayday cause they get a bonus based on not paying claims...that sound good? ...again,? Which is what we had before the ACA.
This is not fear mongering...this is what any smart CEO would do, otherwise id fire them...wouldn't you? their job is to make profit not pay out.

Think it's past time to move onto single payer.

 

What I am suggesting is different. I am suggesting that employers must offer insurance as a part of compensation. Not may. Must. It would be hospitalization insurance, much like Medicare Part A. People are going to want more than that, and that is where a whole menu of insurance offerings could come in, purchased either by the employer or the individual.

 

Oh it's about to get real all right, but this will be far from the causation.

 

Yes, it's exactly fear mongering.

 

How so?...that is how to run a business.
What is the purpose of running an insurance company again?

 

Because you're trying to conflate a cutthroat business model with Trump's health insurance plan.

 

I have the choice not to have a car, or not to drive on public roads.

 

That is not cut throat......Cut throat would be repealing the mandate...thus getting rid of covering pre-exsiting conditions...I mean the math does not add up if the insurance pool is diminished with no mandate.

 

I'm fairly certain I read Trump will keep preexisting conditions. I wonder if we'll have to pass the law to find out what's in it like we did with nancy pelosi and the dems.

 

Talking about logical fallacies, where do we start? The first is an appeal to popularity. Just because it's a popular belief doesn't mean it is true. In fact it would also qualify for a bifurcation fallacy as the result could also be stated as a possibility of lower costs. And it only gets worse from there. Too much to waste my time.

 

If this is true, more power.....But at what cost and to whom?
What problems does the right and Trump supporters see with Single payer?
The Canada thing about fleeing to America has been debunked more times then ever...If anything more Americans are still fleeing to other country's for healthcare.