Republicans, what do you think happens to the uninsured?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:37:08 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Republicans, what do you think happens to the uninsured?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Republicans, what do you think happens to the uninsured?  (Read 3485 times)
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 06, 2017, 08:20:26 PM »

The constant refrain I hear from Republicans is that everyone in America is guaranteed healthcare already because they can always go to the emergency room.

Do you think someone with cancer can get comprehensive chemotherapy and radiation treatment in an emergency room? Do you think they can just walk into an oncology clinic and be given charitable care?

Do you think people without insurance can just set up a GoFundMe page and have all their problems go away?
Logged
Matty
boshembechle
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,902


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2017, 08:41:22 PM »

Are you somehow under the impression that republicans don't think uninsurance is an issue?
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2017, 09:06:24 PM »

Are you somehow under the impression that republicans don't think uninsurance is an issue?

You fooled me when the House passed a bill a couple of days ago that will result in fewer people having insurance than otherwise would.
Logged
Confused Democrat
reidmill
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,055
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2017, 10:38:18 PM »

Are you somehow under the impression that republicans don't think uninsurance is an issue?

You fooled me when the House passed a bill a couple of days ago that will result in fewer people having insurance than otherwise would.

Hey! Don't go too hard House Republicans. They didn't read the bill, so it's not like knew less people would be insured.
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2017, 06:47:34 AM »

Those with the misfortune of requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy would likely appreciate if they could buy a cheap policy that only covered conventional treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, rather than being priced out of the market because their insurance is required to cover services they will never or rarely use such as maternity benefits, mental health, prescription drugs, laboratory work, etc.

The Democrats shut down every grocery store and restaurant that does not offer substantial discounts on caviar, foie gras, halibut, King crab, etc. and then complain that it is too expensive for the poor to buy food.
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,964
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2017, 07:36:31 AM »

Those with the misfortune of requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy would likely appreciate if they could buy a cheap policy that only covered conventional treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, rather than being priced out of the market because their insurance is required to cover services they will never or rarely use such as maternity benefits, mental health, prescription drugs, laboratory work, etc.

The reason insurance works is because you are required to pay for services you will likely never or rarely use, thus subsidizing the costs for those who do need them.

So those with the misfortune of requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy need to have been paying their dues all along, paying for things they probably would never need. And now that they have a need, it's the people who are paying for things they will probably never need that are covering the costs.

Otherwise, the costs need to be subsidized externally in order for it to work at all.

So maybe you think one shouldn't be required to participate. But the fact is not enough people would buy just catastrophic insurance for it to work with cheap premiums.
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2017, 09:05:32 AM »

Those with the misfortune of requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy would likely appreciate if they could buy a cheap policy that only covered conventional treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, rather than being priced out of the market because their insurance is required to cover services they will never or rarely use such as maternity benefits, mental health, prescription drugs, laboratory work, etc.

The reason insurance works is because you are required to pay for services you will likely never or rarely use, thus subsidizing the costs for those who do need them.

As a male, I can guarantee that I will never need pregnancy services. Prescription drugs I can pay for out of pocket, and I am skeptical of the efficacy of what qualifies for mental health services even in the unlikely event that I do have a nervous breakdown.

And no, insurance does not work by requiring people to purchase coverage for services they won't need. Homeowners in the Rocky Mountains are not fined if they do not pay for flood insurance, single young people are not fined if they do not pay for life insurance, drivers are not fined if they do not pay for comprehensive car insurance (catastrophic coverage yes, but hitting someone else's car has negative externalities, unlike damaging your own vehicle). Insurance works by convincing enough people with low but not nonexistent probabilities of catastrophe to purchase their coverage that they can afford to pay the costs of one of their catastrophes and still make a profit. Any insurance company that fails to diversify (such as by covering a bunch of people with correlated, high, and/or self-imposed risk) would soon be out of business. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I would rather accept certain death than be cruelly poisoned for what most likely would be an extra few months of torture, why should I pay for chemotherapy coverage? Fortunately, most people probably would like to be covered in the event of a cancer diagnosis, so that would likely be a popular item. Universal HIV screening, not as popular.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's fine if done the right way. There seems to be a general consensus that the poor should have some sort of health safety net, and thus I could see a role for insurance subsidies for those in bottom income tiers, provided that such subsidies match individual contribution (ensuring that the covered party has skin in the game) and that they are tapered off with increasing income (ensuring that the safety net exists without creating a marginal disincentive to acquiring a livelihood.)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

They would be cheaper than they are today or prior to PPACA, and health care costs would go down.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2017, 09:10:21 AM »

Oh please you partisan hack. Illness is just a liberal conspiracy theory to justify higher taxes and more spending.
Logged
Wiz in Wis
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,711


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2017, 09:13:49 AM »

Those with the misfortune of requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy would likely appreciate if they could buy a cheap policy that only covered conventional treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, rather than being priced out of the market because their insurance is required to cover services they will never or rarely use such as maternity benefits, mental health, prescription drugs, laboratory work, etc.

The Democrats shut down every grocery store and restaurant that does not offer substantial discounts on caviar, foie gras, halibut, King crab, etc. and then complain that it is too expensive for the poor to buy food.

I'm just here to point out that most conventional treatments to cancer require prescription drugs and laboratory work.

Carry on.
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,964
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2017, 09:25:14 AM »

As a male, I can guarantee that I will never need pregnancy services.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the insurance plan. "Never" is consistent with "likely never." It all falls under the umbrella of subsidizing the medical costs of others. Females can't get prostate cancer but are still subsidizing the medical costs for males who get it.
 
And no, insurance does not work by requiring people to purchase coverage for services they won't need.

That's not how I meant it. =P I'll rephrase. The reason insurance works is because you a pay for services you will likely never or rarely use, thus subsidizing the costs for those who do need them.

If I would rather accept certain death than be cruelly poisoned for what most likely would be an extra few months of torture, why should I pay for chemotherapy coverage?

Well that's a rather loaded question. Death by tumor is very much torture and chemotherapy can save your life. Regardless, your logic applies to any kind of medical coverage at all. Any possible treatment could hypothetically be passed over voluntarily, and thus why should it be part of a medical insurance plan?

There seems to be a general consensus that the poor should have some sort of health safety net, and thus I could see a role for insurance subsidies for those in bottom income tiers, provided that such subsidies match individual contribution (ensuring that the covered party has skin in the game) and that they are tapered off with increasing income (ensuring that the safety net exists without creating a marginal disincentive to acquiring a livelihood.)

So then we're talking about taxes to fund the subsidies, which is what the Individual Mandate is anyway according to the Supreme Court.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2017, 11:53:05 AM »


There seems to be a general consensus that the poor should have some sort of health safety net, and thus I could see a role for insurance subsidies for those in bottom income tiers, provided that such subsidies match individual contribution (ensuring that the covered party has skin in the game) and that they are tapered off with increasing income (ensuring that the safety net exists without creating a marginal disincentive to acquiring a livelihood.)

So then we're talking about taxes to fund the subsidies, which is what the Individual Mandate is anyway according to the Supreme Court.

Literally no one believes that besides John Roberts.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2017, 12:02:33 PM »

"Duurrrr Imma man why should I pay for some ladies mammygram?"

That's the whole f**king point of what a risk pool is. That's the whole point of what INSURANCE is.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2017, 12:17:43 PM »

Those with the misfortune of requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy would likely appreciate if they could buy a cheap policy that only covered conventional treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, rather than being priced out of the market because their insurance is required to cover services they will never or rarely use such as maternity benefits, mental health, prescription drugs, laboratory work, etc.

All these cuts don't save nearly as much as Republicans seem to think.

Take maternity, for example. If maternity is optional, only people who know they'll need it buy it, and a maternity policy often costs double a non-maternity policy or more. But, if maternity is a required benefit, the cost is spread out and only adds a couple percentage points to everyone's costs.

Republicans seem to think they're saving money by cutting maternity, but they're going to be really surprised when young women about to have a child see their rates double or more while everyone else's only go down a percentage point or two (and that's IF the insurer doesn't decide to just hang on to that discount in the name of adverse deviation).

The same principle applies to the other stuff you mentioned. There's just not much to save by carving out services, and the few people who really need them get screwed hard.

A better idea would be for Medicare to pick up all the cancer patients. Medicare already picks up ESRD patients, so there's precedent. Medicare has a much broader network than most private insurance, so the patients would benefit, and their absence from the insured pool would lower the average costs across the board. We could do that with other diseases too, but cancer is a common and expensive condition, so it seems like a good starting point.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2017, 12:19:48 PM »

"Duurrrr Imma man why should I pay for some ladies mammygram?"

That's the whole f**king point of what a risk pool is. That's the whole point of what INSURANCE is.

True, but sadly the ACA much of the pool is a pool of toxics and very few healthies.
Logged
ProudModerate2
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,351
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2017, 12:51:06 PM »

Are you somehow under the impression that republicans don't think uninsurance is an issue?

Congressman Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) .....
"Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care."
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2017, 12:58:48 PM »

"Duurrrr Imma man why should I pay for some ladies mammygram?"

That's the whole f**king point of what a risk pool is. That's the whole point of what INSURANCE is.

True, but sadly the ACA much of the pool is a pool of toxics and very few healthies.

A genuine flaw, one fixed by creating a true universal healthcare system.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2017, 01:17:30 PM »

Not a Republican of the Trump variety or backing the AHCA but I would say that mandating insurance (through the penalties stipulated under the AHCA) isn't a horrible idea. If we required everyone to carry insurance, with stiff penalties, we would force healthies with the sick pool. Coupled with strong collective bargaining by the government to keep down prices, it would probably work well. Drug reform as well would drive down healthcare costs as well as getting rid of the antiquated World War II employer-sponsored healthcare system.

I'm aware it resembles the ACA but I'm pointing out there are ways to deal with the uninsured under a capitalist healthcare system. We need not need single payer from a policy standpoint where there are other good options.

I won't offer a defense of the current asinine idiocy known as "AHCA," designed to buy off the Freedom Caucus and not worth discussing.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2017, 01:33:03 PM »

"Duurrrr Imma man why should I pay for some ladies mammygram?"

That's the whole f**king point of what a risk pool is. That's the whole point of what INSURANCE is.

True, but sadly the ACA much of the pool is a pool of toxics and very few healthies.

A genuine flaw, one fixed by creating a true universal healthcare system.

Yeah, when the pool is a kiddie pool (11.4 million people is a kiddie pool, kids), one person peeing in it makes it horrible for all.  There needs to be a health supply of healthies and they need to have a reason to join.
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,964
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2017, 01:49:37 PM »


There seems to be a general consensus that the poor should have some sort of health safety net, and thus I could see a role for insurance subsidies for those in bottom income tiers, provided that such subsidies match individual contribution (ensuring that the covered party has skin in the game) and that they are tapered off with increasing income (ensuring that the safety net exists without creating a marginal disincentive to acquiring a livelihood.)

So then we're talking about taxes to fund the subsidies, which is what the Individual Mandate is anyway according to the Supreme Court.

Literally no one believes that besides John Roberts.

It doesn't matter. It was supported by 5-4 majority even if 4 of the 5 wrote dissents. So it's the interpretation of the law at present.

And it accomplishes the same result as having a tax, whether or not it actually is one.
Logged
Jeffster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 476
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2017, 01:59:19 PM »

"Duurrrr Imma man why should I pay for some ladies mammygram?"

That's the whole f**king point of what a risk pool is. That's the whole point of what INSURANCE is.

Women utilize more healthcare spending than men, so wouldn't it be fair to have separate risk pools, one for men and one for women?
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2017, 02:10:28 PM »

"Duurrrr Imma man why should I pay for some ladies mammygram?"

That's the whole f**king point of what a risk pool is. That's the whole point of what INSURANCE is.

Women utilize more healthcare spending than men, so wouldn't it be fair to have separate risk pools, one for men and one for women?

How far do you want to take that?  Old people use more than young people, so should there be risk pools for different age groups (and how many different age groups)?  Or you can slice the population any number of other ways.  The bigger the risk pool, the better it is for the overall population.  Yes, this means that the healthy subsidize the sick.  That's the way insurance works: those who don't use it subsidize those who do.  It's the same with home insurance, car insurance, or any other kind.

As I understand it, the main objection that many people have is that they don't want to be forced to subsidize the health care of others.  You can debate whether it's moral and/or legal to force everyone to participate in such a scheme; after much thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that it's both, but I recognize that there are reasonable arguments against this.  However, if you accept that everybody is going to be covered, then putting everyone in the same pool is the best way to do it.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,550
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2017, 02:28:28 PM »

I think they're main thinking is that only good people who work can have it and everyone else should work harder.
Logged
Jeffster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 476
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2017, 02:31:32 PM »
« Edited: May 08, 2017, 02:49:05 PM by Jeffster »

"Duurrrr Imma man why should I pay for some ladies mammygram?"

That's the whole f**king point of what a risk pool is. That's the whole point of what INSURANCE is.

Women utilize more healthcare spending than men, so wouldn't it be fair to have separate risk pools, one for men and one for women?

How far do you want to take that?  Old people use more than young people, so should there be risk pools for different age groups (and how many different age groups)?  Or you can slice the population any number of other ways.  The bigger the risk pool, the better it is for the overall population.  Yes, this means that the healthy subsidize the sick.  That's the way insurance works: those who don't use it subsidize those who do.  It's the same with home insurance, car insurance, or any other kind.

As I understand it, the main objection that many people have is that they don't want to be forced to subsidize the health care of others.  You can debate whether it's moral and/or legal to force everyone to participate in such a scheme; after much thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that it's both, but I recognize that there are reasonable arguments against this.  However, if you accept that everybody is going to be covered, then putting everyone in the same pool is the best way to do it.

The men/women divide is the biggest slice you could make, as it falls somewhere in the neighborhood of 49/51. So what we'd get with one large pool is a transfer of income from men to women.  I'm not talking about dividing it by smaller and smaller groups. Among both men and women groups, we expect there to be healthy and sick, and young and old, so their pools would still have to cover the sub-groups that use more healthcare because most people will get sick at some point and most people will grow old, but they aren't about to suddenly wake up as the opposite sex and have to deal with those sex-specific health care concerns.

In fact why is it the wage gap conspiracy theorists never bring up the fact that men pay in more for health insurance and taxes than they take out compared to women? Men have been subsidizing women with their incomes for years, but we're supposed to care that a woman with a gender studies degree doesn't earn the same amount than a man with an engineering degree.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2017, 02:44:29 PM »

There is a shocking amount of Republicans who seem to believe because emergency rooms have to treat anyone who walks in, no one in America dies because they don't have insurance.

Anyone who earnestly believes that so out-of-touch with reality that they are unfit for public office.
Logged
ProudModerate2
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,351
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2017, 02:46:17 PM »
« Edited: May 08, 2017, 02:47:59 PM by ProudModerate2 »

"Duurrrr Imma man why should I pay for some ladies mammygram?"

That's the whole f**king point of what a risk pool is. That's the whole point of what INSURANCE is.

Women utilize more healthcare spending than men, so wouldn't it be fair to have separate risk pools, one for men and one for women?

How far do you want to take that?  Old people use more than young people, so should there be risk pools for different age groups (and how many different age groups)?  Or you can slice the population any number of other ways.  The bigger the risk pool, the better it is for the overall population.  Yes, this means that the healthy subsidize the sick.  That's the way insurance works: those who don't use it subsidize those who do.  It's the same with home insurance, car insurance, or any other kind.

As I understand it, the main objection that many people have is that they don't want to be forced to subsidize the health care of others.  You can debate whether it's moral and/or legal to force everyone to participate in such a scheme; after much thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that it's both, but I recognize that there are reasonable arguments against this.  However, if you accept that everybody is going to be covered, then putting everyone in the same pool is the best way to do it.

The men/women divide is the biggest slice you could make, as it falls somewhere in the neighborhood of 49/51. So what we'd get with one large pool is a transfer of income from men to women.  I'm not talking about dividing it by smaller and smaller groups. Among both men and women groups, we expect there to be healthy and sick, and young and old, so their pools would still have to cover the sub-groups that use more healthcare because most people will get sick at some point and most people will grow old, but they aren't about to suddenly wake up as the opposite sex and have to deal with those sex-specific health care concerns.

In fact why is it the wage gape conspiracy theorists never bring up the fact that men pay in more for health insurance and taxes than they take out compared to women? Men have been subsidizing women with their incomes for years, but we're supposed to care that a woman with a gender studies degree doesn't earn the same amount than a man with an engineering degree.

This is the way health insurance you to be, if you went out and purchased it yourself.
I know, because I was doing this myself, and I remember seeing that there was a different premium (monthly payment) for men versus women.
But the difference was NOT anything significant. I wasn't tiny either, but I would describe it as a "small" difference.
Whether it was big enough to scream "the sky is falling" (and we need 2 pools) .... well, I guess each person has their opinion.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.