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

I absolutely support insuring those unfortunates with pre-existing conditions. Insurance is a business like any other and, trust me, those companies are wealthy enough to absorb any loss. How America does it without insurance companies fleecing you as they have been doing for decades, is a tough one. Nationalized healthcare paid for through taxation is a model which works elsewhere; why not America? France's nationalized healthcare system is rated the best in the world.; the US ranks 37th.
Writing-off sick people in order to maximize the bottom line for shareholder payouts is completely unacceptable. Health before profits every time.

 

Actually, yes I can see the logic for the most part. Just one question, why to you keep back peddling?

 

I think ACA should be repealed in it's entirety.


Replaced by single payer.

 

Too tell the truth, I would like something just like Obamacare, but with a few changes.

Instead of having a mandate, anyone who can not afford private insurance would be covered by Medicaid and medicare. To cover the cost, you raise the FICA cap to $1,000,000 and establish a FICA tax on businesses with a cap of $10,000,000, instead of having businesses match their employees' contributions. This would basically work as a limited public option, and would cover children, the poor, and the disabled. It could also be used to fill coverage gays in private insurance, for a fee.

You set minimum standards for insurance coverage, just like in Obamacare. Companies that do not meet those standards would not be banned, like in Obamacare, but would simply be restricted. They would be unable to receive contracts with the federal government, would be banned from receiving any grants. or subsidies using federal money, would be barred from receiving any special tax deductions or credit, and would be required to clearly state in all advertisements in the US that their coverage fails to meet national standards.



Lift the ban on interstate insurance sales, and establish a national database of all US insurance companies where customers can compare plans and make purchases. Companies that do not meet national standard would be banned from participation in the database



Ban anyone who can afford to buy private insurance but chooses not to from taking their medical costs off of the taxes. They made their choice, they pay for it, not the taxpayers.




There would be a mandate on children. Parents would be required by law to keep insurance for all children under the age of 18.

 

Ah, the old appeal to authority fallacy, well except for that "Libertarian" thing but we will get to that in a moment. Just imagine, an entity writing a glowing report about itself including that outstanding closing wherein they overcharged by more than a billion dollars and had to pay it back. Nothing like painting ill intent as a positive to get the mentally enslaved to sing your praises. Funny that there is no mention of what happened to all that money collected by the medial appliance and other taxes imposed by Odumbocare.

Libertarians, those confused individuals that somehow think liberty should be defined as a lesser degree of slavery compounding this appeal to authority fallacy with arguing from ignorance fallacy.

 

My key point is that the Federal govt shouldn't be FORCING people to foot the bill. There's nothing wrong with ASKING for help!

 

You got me ....+1 for you.
But continue with the argument....I purpose single payer system..what is your argument against that?

 

Logical fallacies, let me count the ways:

Appeal to authority, appeal to consequences, Bandwagon fallacy, arguing from ignorance fallacy, subjectivist fallacy, equivocation fallacy.... This list could go on and on and on. Maybe a definition would clarify the issue:

As an aside, did you know the 1828 Webster's had no entry for socialism, now back to the program.

Ah yes, in order for a single payer system to exist requires the force of government (not a positive attribute) to eliminate competition. A monopoly is not possible in a free market system.

 

Hillery Clinton lost an election being so pompous....don't make the same mistake.

 

And you see no relationship from that to today's nightmare?

 

This is true...but I am still trying to find fault in healthcare not being so capitalistic....
Advances in Medicine have far out paced our spending. For example which I dislike to use, is Cuba....​

 

There are a couple of things I see. Many companies have never included health insurance as a part of their pay package. And now, a growing number that used to include it, don't. And finally, I see a philosophy that has been adopted across the political spectrum, from left to right. And that philosophy is that "I shouldn't have to pay for it."

If I've said it once, I've said it 100 times on this website: "If you want something, you can have it, but you must pay for it. If you are unwilling to pay for it, you can't have it."

A generation ago, and in generations past, we knew this. For some reason, we don't know it anymore.

 

What part of before the ACA even though you paid for it..you would not receive it don't you under stand....Insurance screws people left and right all the time, and some want to get rid of more regulations?

"Common reasons for a denial and examples of appeal letters"

https://www.insurance.wa.gov/your-i...nce/appeal/denial-reasons-and-appeal-example/

 

The old circular argument fallacy. If they don't have how can one claim there is no equality?

Really...

I would say that with your declaration using a bifurcation fallacy is a pretty clear intent of your position. You are trying to use the arguing from ignorance fallacy to imply something true by inference to a false premise.

Again the arguing from ignorance fallacy coupled with an appeal to consequences fallacy. Perhaps you should do research on how a doctor is compensated under these insurance plans before you make such sweeping generalizations.

So you take no ownership of what you have posted. Your options as posted where:

1) Screw the people
2) Screw the people another way
3) Screw the people some more which is really just a rewording of number 2.​

i would think that just because of my signature block, my position would be pretty obvious but to make it perfectly clear. I am not a slave and require no one to make decisions for me. Government is just one big pile of idiots that somehow are under the impression that a servant somehow implies a right to mastery. And when one violates my right to ignore them, I deal with them very harshly by civil litigation. After all, someone has to eliminate the sociopaths and psychopaths from the legitimate functions of public service or as Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

 

The fact that it is "political" should give one the first hint. The fact that medical care has hi-jacked the term health care should be the second, medical care and health care are mutually opposing objectives. If I were to require slicing and dicing, I am most appreciative of medicine, after all 222 years of the 246 years of this countries existence has been in war maiming our young has been a great tool in restoring the human anatomy.

And the fact of inserting a third party payer falsely pretending to be insurance should be the third. Using car insurance as an analogy, imagine the cost of that policy if all routine maintenance and user abuse were rolled into the equation.

From your implied concept of health insurance as we know it today, my prime question would be, "Why aren't more people uninsured?" This implied concept is the causation of the effect being experienced today. America does not have the most expensive health care, we have the most expensive medical care. Health care has almost been eliminated from this country. All one need do is to look for either a holistic or naturopathic healer to find health is a dying breed.

Pharmaceuticals aren't health. They are toxic chemical concoctions (nature can't be patented) defined by side effects that need to be countered by another toxic chemical concoction, and so forth and so on infinitum. The sad part is their ability to destroy a function of the body, some to the extent that if the drug doesn't kill you, withdrawal will, like statins.

The cost of health has never changed. Health has just migrated to medicine, a very expensive alternative to health.

What if all the indoctrinated souls decide to become educated and fend for themselves?

"Start with lawyers", how about we end lawyers all together. When one stops to realize that hiring a lawyer is to declare one's self incompetent before the court evidenced by the lawyer's oath to put the client's interest behind the interest of the court, hence the lawyer's interest also. By the way, the loser does pay, it is taxed as costs payable by the loser if commanded by the pleadings.

FDA, that convoluted agency that constantly swaps staff with the very entities it is supposed to regulate. No conflict of interest there.

Ah, a real classic example of non sequitur. Why would you want to stop something and in your very next statement so it is ok to just pile it all back on again?

 

I have a feeling that you find it difficult to agree with anybody on anything. That comes from not examining the points except to find things to take exception to- and sadly, just adds to the confusion on this issue.

 

Sounds more like a hypothetical excuse to be used in the future to deny any personal responsibility. In reality an insurance policy is nothing more than a contract wherein the party of the first part (the seller) make an offer that was accepted by the party of the second part (the buyer) by consideration (the premium) for performance of the terms of the contract. To fail to perform on the terms after consideration is a breach actionable at law.

Now if one is denied because the terms of the contract not only did not cover but in some cases actually stated it was not covered could be plead as a lack of meeting of the minds necessary for a valid contract. However, the seller could only be taxed the cost of premiums for the contract leaving one uninsurable as a person having no honor in their contracts, preexisting condition or not. The only negation of this action would be a group plan where the individual is not adjudged individually, putting one forever at the mercy of only working for a company with a group plan which in and of itself was effectively killed by Odumbocare.

Then to follow up with a complaint to the state wherein the complainant declares themselves ignorant toward the ability to contract is not a wise move at all. Then to further compound the problem, one requests the state to take an action outside their jurisdiction for an action caused by the idiot filing the complaint, smart move.

Actually I would doubt this hypothetical person would ever be in a position to even meet the CEO must less control his destiny. This would just be another desperate cry of one incompetent to handle their person affairs required they become a ward much like a young child that has not learned to handle responsibility.

Not in this lifetime, perhaps next life I will return as an idiot incapable of responsibility.

 

IF you're collecting unemployment, you're generally not elegible for Medicaid.

 

Different from what? This all started as part of the coup d'etat of FDR with his "New Deal". "New Deal" my behind, it was just another period in time, like the Greeks and Romans before us wherein a less than noble republic was seized for the slide into oligarchy. FDR picked up where Wilson left off. However, must of the programs of the New Deal were declared unconstitutional, that is until:

Hey, that same guy that gave us Social Security but it was Johnson that gave us Medicare in 1965.

Many of those programs that were struck down were an outreach of the Federal Reserve act but this is beyond the scope of the discussion so you need to do your own homework on this one.

Now we have Odumbocare which was declared unconstitutional by those mystical beings in black robes which changed penalties to tax and as tax was not a question at bar, committed treason. Now that challenge will never be allowed to reach the court.

 

So how many businesses have you run? Successfully?

- - - Updated - - -

That begs the question, you didn't answer it.

 

Is that in the same category as he would prosecute Hillary?

 

I support insurance paid for by the individual, whether as a benefit of their full time employment with employee contributions, or by direct purchase.

I don't see having insurance as an entry point, however, to be able to access health care. No insurance simply means those without take the risk on themselves for being financially responsible. Even those of us with insurance are liable to those policy limitation clauses. We all have risk that care might outstrip our coverage, or lack there of.

Perhaps the single most beneficial thing government could help out with is getting out of it. Reducing the "required paper pushing" the regulation driven overhead of health care alone would drive the cost of services down to be reasonable again. Removing federal repayment guarnatees for procedures would allow markets to determine the value of time and services by the providers themselves. Yes, there will be many who find that their remuneration is grossly over priced, and will suffer the market forces for it.

But, honestly. Going to the doctor's office to get a prescription for tamaflu isn't worth $300. Nor is the tamaflu itself worth $300s. And yet, this is likely the cost for many of us, why? Because Medicaid/Medicare are willing to pay that much for both. Without federally supported cost models, these would likely not be this high, and force the actual cost of service significantly lower for all. And isn't that the point?

 

Wow, a logical statement, surprise, surprise.

Let's see, the poor have no money. The rich have lots of very expensive lawyers. So my guess would be those least likely to afford it, those with just enough substance to steal from without fear of reprisal, the middle class.

Let me count the way, sorry don't have the time to count that high so let's just suffice it to say, we haven't reached Fascism yet. Getting closer all the time but not there yet. If you feel better using communism, while not technically correct, go right ahead as both are the same with the exception of the control mechanism.

Debunked, by whom? All we have here is just an unproven allegation of no consequence.

[video=youtube;iRPhltjPSFs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRPhltjPSFs[/video]

This is but one story. Using "canadian health care exposed" in the search engine for YouTube brought 8,050 results. That seems to be a very large number when one stops to consider just what percentage of people post a YouTube video.

 

I did but found it totally lacking much as I have with most of the responses you have submitted on this thread. But your link is a start, have you ever read it?

Compel what argument? Logical fallacies does not make an argument, it averts it.

 

Not sure. It annoys me that we apparently have to involve government in the first place, especially the federal government, in order for people to get health care in this country. I would much prefer it were a private matter left to providers and patients. It's probably government involvement and interference that have created this crisis of unaffordability and people being unable to get care in the first place.