What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[CharonY]

Ehem.

Quote

Most importantly, the contents of the Affordable Care Act had been publicly available and publicly debated for months, when Pelosi made her remarks in March 2010. The bill, in its original form, was introduced into the House of Representatives in October 2009, and in the Senate the following month. Although the bill was unusually long (the act runs to 906 pages in the legislative record, with many more pages of regulations) its contents had been subjected to intensive debate and scrutiny in both houses of Congress.

 

The speech was also in front of stakeholders and she referred to how they would see the benefits only after the bill is passed. Right now the situation is a) rushed (esp. compared to the lengthy process of ACA) and not even those guys who are going to vote know in detail what the bill entails or what it is going to do. 

[iNow]

Don't get in the way of my forced partisanship with your facts and context, CharonY! I just won't have it!!

After all, 18 months of debate is pretty much the same thing as 18 minutes of debate. Snowflake. 

[rangerx]

23 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

That's okay.  After they pass it they can find out what's in it.  

 

I see. When liberals do it, it's bad. When Republicans do it, it's good.

Thanks for alluding to the batshit crazy pre-existing condition point I made earlier.

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, rangerx said:

I see. When liberals do it, it's bad. When Republicans do it, it's good.

Thanks for alluding to the batshit crazy pre-existing condition point I made earlier.

No, waitforufo is attempting to pretend it is the same thing when it isn't. In context Nancy Pelosi was discussing the impact. She was saying we all have seen the controversies and now we will see the impact. The CBO cost estimate for the bill passed the Senate on December 24, 2009. The ACA had 79 committe hearings and was being openly debated by the Senate by the time of Nancy Pelosi's remarks. What was in the bill was known. Waitforufo is either hoping we are all ignorant of the ACA's actual legislative history or is ignorant of it themselves. The ACA passed March 23rd  2010. Nancy Pelosi's qoute is from March 10th of 2010. The major ACA provisions didn't even take effect untill 2014 which means opponents of the bill had nearly 4yrs of additional time to debate it and win enough seats to repeal it prior to it taking effect.

"“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention — it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation — innovation begins in the classroom — clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon. "

 

[swansont]

Indeed. Pelosi was talking about details. The current situation is regarding the bulk of the bill. To compare the scenarios is inherently dishonest.

[Phi for All]

I'd like to hear someone defend the GOP concept that not all Americans deserve to have access to healthcare. Most of the twaddle I've heard so far is a bunch of Puritanical crap about disapproved lifestyles. Is there a real argument out there as to why the GOP feels Americans in general shouldn't be covered? 

Let's face it, if the money goes to the states, we lose a lot of negotiating power, we lose coverage for millions, and from what I read about this new bill, the money isn't earmarked for healthcare at all. The states could decide to give it to private insurers as a subsidy, or they could use it to update the governor's mansion. 

To me, it looks like the GOP wants to spend as little as possible on People (with People money) unless we're already in a position to pay for our own healthcare. Why the short-sightedness? Don't employers want workers healthy enough to work? Have Americans become superfluous within their own workforce?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I'd like to hear someone defend the GOP concept that not all Americans deserve to have access to healthcare.

I'll give it a shot.

There are some people out there who squander all opportunities and generally lower the quality of life for those around them. They can buy healthcare if they can get the funds together, but they do not 'deserve' healthcare any more than they 'deserve' friendship or respect.

I think framing the GOP position as 'Not all Americans deserve healthcare' is disingenuous and prejudicial. Have you actually heard anyone in the GOP use those words?

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I'd like to hear someone defend the GOP concept that not all Americans deserve to have access to healthcare. Most of the twaddle I've heard so far is a bunch of Puritanical crap about disapproved lifestyles. Is there a real argument out there as to why the GOP feels Americans in general shouldn't be covered? 

Let's face it, if the money goes to the states, we lose a lot of negotiating power, we lose coverage for millions, and from what I read about this new bill, the money isn't earmarked for healthcare at all. The states could decide to give it to private insurers as a subsidy, or they could use it to update the governor's mansion. 

To me, it looks like the GOP wants to spend as little as possible on People (with People money) unless we're already in a position to pay for our own healthcare. Why the short-sightedness? Don't employers want workers healthy enough to work? Have Americans become superfluous within their own workforce?

Fear of losing what they have is the only possible argument to exclude a fellow human; as a fellow human, I'm ashamed.

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I think framing the GOP position as 'Not all Americans deserve healthcare' is disingenuous and prejudicial. Have you actually heard anyone in the GOP use those words?

If you aren't talking about leadership (where they use coded language instead) then hell yes! Many GOP members I know personally feel the country is full of lazy gay drug addicts who've brought all their health issues upon themselves, and don't deserve the same healthcare as decent God-fearing folk.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

.There are some people out there who squander all opportunities and generally lower the quality of life for those around them. They can buy healthcare if they can get the funds together, but they do not 'deserve' healthcare any more than they 'deserve' friendship or respect.

 

Humans do human things because other humans do human things to them, 'deserve' is judgemental and doesn't always equal justice.

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'll give it a shot.

There are some people out there who squander all opportunities and generally lower the quality of life for those around them. They can buy healthcare if they can get the funds together, but they do not 'deserve' healthcare any more than they 'deserve' friendship or respect.

I think framing the GOP position as 'Not all Americans deserve healthcare' is disingenuous and prejudicial. Have you actually heard anyone in the GOP use those words?

The problem I see with both your and Phi for All's posts is that the GOP's policy goals with healthcare have next to nothing to do with Healthcare and everything to do with tax cuts. The reason the GOP are taking another swing at healthcare so soon after their previous failure is because they need to get an ACA repeal done or else they won't be able to get a deal done they want on taxes. So it isn't so much that Republicans don't think people "deserve" healthcare or are considering those who "squander all opportunities" but rather that Republicans don't care about healthcare in lieu of their attempt to cut taxes.

 

While no individual elected Republican has said the exact words 'Not all Americans deserve healthcare' many of their actions have shown indifference towards people having or not having healthcare. So it isn't much of a stretch to assume most Republicans are not of the opinion it is something "all Americans deserve".So Phi for All's point disingenuous or prejudicial. It merely concludes reasonable assumptions you disagree with but that the Republican Party at large doesn't address. Trump campaigned on healthcare for all paid for by the government but then pressured members of Congress to support a repeal of the ACA with nothing replacing it. There is termondous inconsistency amongst Republican party leadership regarding healthcare which does beg to question there motives and views which is what Phi for All did.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I'll give it a shot.

There are some people out there who squander all opportunities and generally lower the quality of life for those around them. They can buy healthcare if they can get the funds together, but they do not 'deserve' healthcare any more than they 'deserve' friendship or respect.

I think framing the GOP position as 'Not all Americans deserve healthcare' is disingenuous and prejudicial. Have you actually heard anyone in the GOP use those words?

I think this is a poor argument from several angles. First, from a public health perspective all people deserve health care. Excluding people from access can result in disproportionate health burden for the public as a whole. To me it does not make sense to frame it in terms of whether someone deserved it or not, but rather whether it is good policy or not.

Second, how would any policy be based on what folks deserve or not. Does anyone deserve more because one was born in a wealthy family with access to good education?  Does someone with less means deserve less? Or vice versa?

In my mind, policies should be outcome based and one has to decide on which metrics to be used for the latter. I.e. what can be done to optimize health of everyone under a given set of constraints? 

[waitforufo]

Why make it so complicated.  I pay for health care for me and my family.  Why should I be forced under penalty of law to pay for you and yours?  Now I'm sure I'm going to hear all the socialist clap trap about how it's an investment that will make it so the needy can eventually, in the far away future, one day become contributors.  Well that one day never comes.  A common weakness of human nature is to expect that free things stay free.  If all one needs to do to get the necessities of life for free is to remain needy, many people will work hard to say needy.  Being needy is their path to success.  It puts a roof over their head, clothes on their back, food in their belly and now health care.  

Like I said, I have needs too.  I'm self actualizing.  Why isn't self actualizing a right?  It sure is expensive.  Where is my free stuff?  Where are the other people with bottomless pockets we can force to pay for my self actualizing?  Who do I need to vote for to get the goodies I'm entitled to as my birth right?  

I'll make my investments in the stock and bond markets.  Those investments make jobs for people contributing to society.  

[tuco]

IMO 3, related, issues are the biggest problem of the US Americans: 

1. self-sustainable culture

2. inequality

3. educational system

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

 I pay for health care for me and my family.  Why should I be forced under penalty of law to pay for you and yours?

This suggests you don't understand how insurance coverage actually works. You DON'T pay for healthcare for you and your family. You pay for coverage, the cost of which is contingent on the risk pool you share with others.

[zapatos]

45 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The problem I see with both your and Phi for All's posts is that the GOP's policy goals with healthcare have next to nothing to do with Healthcare and everything to do with tax cuts. The reason the GOP are taking another swing at healthcare so soon after their previous failure is because they need to get an ACA repeal done or else they won't be able to get a deal done they want on taxes. So it isn't so much that Republicans don't think people "deserve" healthcare or are considering those who "squander all opportunities" but rather that Republicans don't care about healthcare in lieu of their attempt to cut taxes.

I agree that the GOP position is in large part due to tax cuts, but also politics. Not repealing the ACA after claiming to do so for seven years is a very risky move.

And again I agree with your assessment that the GOP position is not about "deserve", which was the point I was trying to make. That may be the view of some Republicans, but I think their policy goals have much more to do with ideology surrounding the role of government.

 

Quote

While no individual elected Republican has said the exact words 'Not all Americans deserve healthcare' many of their actions have shown indifference towards people having or not having healthcare. So it isn't much of a stretch to assume most Republicans are not of the opinion it is something "all Americans deserve".

I dislike the word 'deserve' here. In my view, the GOP is of the opinion that not all Americans are 'entitled' to healthcare at the expense of others. It is not so much a value judgement of their fellow Americans, but an ideology about the role of government. That is why I feel Phi for All's portrayal of the GOP position was misleading.

 

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think this is a poor argument from several angles. First, from a public health perspective all people deserve health care. Excluding people from access can result in disproportionate health burden for the public as a whole. To me it does not make sense to frame it in terms of whether someone deserved it or not, but rather whether it is good policy or not.

I agree that it should be based on whether or not it is good policy. And generally speaking I think that is what the GOP is doing; they think it is bad policy (fiscally and philosophically) to guarantee access to health care for all. From their view, budget perspective trumps health perspective.

[waitforufo]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

This suggests you don't understand how insurance coverage actually works. You DON'T pay for healthcare for you and your family. You pay for coverage, the cost of which is contingent on the risk pool you share with others.

If my taxes are paying the subsidy for the insurance premiums of others, I'm paying for their health care of others.  If my taxes are paying the cost sharing reduction payments directly to insurance companies, I'm paying for the health care of others.  

[John Cuthber]

5 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

If my taxes are paying the subsidy for the insurance premiums of others, I'm paying for their health care of others.  If my taxes are paying the cost sharing reduction payments directly to insurance companies, I'm paying for the health care of others.  

And, if you get the system set up right you can do that and get healthcare for roughly half the price.

So, you get to help others, and you save money.

What's not to like?

Edited September 22, 2017 by John Cuthber

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

If my taxes are paying the subsidy for the insurance premiums of others, I'm paying for their health care of others.  If my taxes are paying the cost sharing reduction payments directly to insurance companies, I'm paying for the health care of others.  

I am also being forced under penalty of law to subsidize your use of roads. So I guess we are even.

[waitforufo]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And, if you get the system set up right you can do that and get healthcare for roughly half the price.

What a joke.  There is no way to set up such a system.  Obamacare proves that.

 

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I am also being forced under penalty of law to subsidize your use of roads. So I guess we are even.

You are suggesting that I don't pay for roads.  I do through many taxes.  Particularly gasoline taxes.  Roads are a pay as you use system.  

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

 

You are suggesting that I don't pay for roads.  I do through many taxes.  Particularly gasoline taxes.  Roads are a pay as you use system.  

No, I am suggesting that I don't use roads, but I pay taxes. Therefore you are being subsidized. If I didn't help subsidize you would have to pay more for those roads.

[Ten oz]

56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I dislike the word 'deserve' here. In my view, the GOP is of the opinion that not all Americans are 'entitled' to healthcare at the expense of others. It is not so much a value judgement of their fellow Americans, but an ideology about the role of government. That is why I feel Phi for All's portrayal of the GOP position was misleading.

 

I don't think it is accurate to say its an idealogy about the role of govt. Republicans aren't trying to repeal Medicare and that is a govt entitlement. Only thing a citizen must do to not "squander all opportunities" related to medicare is to not die before turning 65yrs of age. Republican ideology on the matter lacks consistency which leaves the door wide open to different interpretations. Nothing misleading about Phi for All's interpretation. IF republicans had a unifying position or cut in dried ideology on the matter then one would be able to mislead or misrepresent it; but they don't.

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Nothing misleading about Phi for All's interpretation.

I guess we disagree. I just feel if you are going to say the "GOP concept is that not all Americans deserve to have access to healthcare", then you'd better have at least some of the GOP leadership either saying those words, or agreeing those words represent their concept when it comes to healthcare. If they haven't or won't, then you are building a straw man.

Edit: Would it be misleading to say the Democratic concept is that not all Americans deserve to keep the money they earn?

Edited September 22, 2017 by zapatos

[MigL]

The one I've always heard from some Republicans...
"Do you want your health care controlled by some faceless bureaucrat  in Washington DC ?"
as the reasoning for state control.

The system in Canada is controlled and governed at the Provincial level, but the Federal government provides a percentage of the budget for Health care. With its contribution, the Federal government ensures that a minimum level of Health care is maintained throughout the country; Individual provinces can increase coverage as they see fit, but must maintain that minimum level to receive the federal portion of funding.

The US could do worse than adopt such a system.
( and it looks like they will )

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I guess we disagree. I just feel if you are going to say the "GOP concept is that not all Americans deserve to have access to healthcare", then you'd better have at least some of the GOP leadership either saying those words, or agreeing those words represent their concept when it comes to healthcare. If they haven't or won't, then you are building a straw man.

Do you recall the Republican primary debates in 2012 where cheers erupted when someone in the audeince shouted out "let them die" while Ron Paul was answerig a question about who should pay for a sick person who required care but didn't have coverage? That type of attituded has permeated healthcare discussion since the ACA was past and was popular amongst various tea party circles. In my opinion such attitudes are what Phi for All is referencing.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9fk7NpgIU