Republicans, what do you think happens to the uninsured?

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

And who subsidizes that (very expensive) ER care?  The taxpayers.  That was one of the main arguments for requiring an individual mandate: it would reduce overall healthcare costs by lowering the amount of uninsured ER care.  However, as an indirect cost, it's much less visible to the average taxpayer.

[Virginiá]

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?

Covering at least one aspect of this - women also give birth to all the men, which brings into the fold all the healthcare-related complications and difficulties of pregnancy.

Why do I get a #MensRights vibe from you?

[Jeffster]

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?

Covering at least one aspect of this - women also give birth to all the men, which brings into the fold all the healthcare-related complications and difficulties of pregnancy.

Why do I get a #MensRights vibe from you?

Women also give birth to all the women too, yet you don't want them to pay extra when they grow up, like you expect men to. Having children is a personal choice, if they don't want the expenses and difficulties then don't have kids. Why do I get a #Misandrist vibe from you?

[Xing]

I don't drive much, so I guess I shouldn't have to pay as much for maintaining our roads and bridges as people who drive 12,000 miles a year, right?

[heatcharger]

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?

Covering at least one aspect of this - women also give birth to all the men, which brings into the fold all the healthcare-related complications and difficulties of pregnancy.

Why do I get a #MensRights vibe from you?

Women also give birth to all the women too, yet you don't want them to pay extra when they grow up, like you expect men to. Having children is a personal choice, if they don't want the expenses and difficulties then don't have kids. Why do I get a #Misandrist vibe from you?

Lol at this line of argument.

[Jeffster]

I don't drive much, so I guess I shouldn't have to pay as much for maintaining our roads and bridges as people who drive 12,000 miles a year, right?

Huh? People who drive more do pay more in gas taxes and tolls.

[Xing]

I don't drive much, so I guess I shouldn't have to pay as much for maintaining our roads and bridges as people who drive 12,000 miles a year, right?

Huh? People who drive more do pay more in gas taxes and tolls.

That's true, but I don't get a lower price per gallon. My point is that we don't get to decide that because we use a societal necessity less than someone else that we should get to pay less for it (or not pay for it at all.)

[Jeffster]

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?

Covering at least one aspect of this - women also give birth to all the men, which brings into the fold all the healthcare-related complications and difficulties of pregnancy.

Why do I get a #MensRights vibe from you?

Women also give birth to all the women too, yet you don't want them to pay extra when they grow up, like you expect men to. Having children is a personal choice, if they don't want the expenses and difficulties then don't have kids. Why do I get a #Misandrist vibe from you?

Lol at this line of argument.

We aren't living in the Handmaid's tale, no matter how much of a meany you think Trump and the Republicans are, so if you don't want the costs and difficulties associated with child birth, then don't have kids. Saying that because some women give birth to men therefore all men should have to subsidize all women for the rest of their lives out of some sort of life debt is preposterous, when you don't require the same from women.

[Virginiá]

We aren't living in the Handmaid's tale, no matter how much of a meany you think Trump and the Republicans are, so if you don't want the costs and difficulties associated with child birth, then don't have kids. Saying that because women give birth to men therefore all men should have to subsidize all women for the rest of their lives out of some sort of life debt is preposterous, when you don't require the same from women.

My entire worldview is built on the idea that if we all pool our resources, no one has to needlessly suffer or face financial hardship for things like healthcare, and this is under the assumption I'd be subsidizing all sorts of problems other people face that I would very likely never have. I can definitely assure you I wouldn't be sitting here whining about subsidizing men if the roles were somehow reversed. I already help subsidize a range of activities I don't like with my tax dollars.

Get over your little male persecution complex already.

[Jeffster]

We aren't living in the Handmaid's tale, no matter how much of a meany you think Trump and the Republicans are, so if you don't want the costs and difficulties associated with child birth, then don't have kids. Saying that because women give birth to men therefore all men should have to subsidize all women for the rest of their lives out of some sort of life debt is preposterous, when you don't require the same from women.

My entire worldview is built on the idea that if we all pool our resources, no one has to needlessly suffer or face financial hardship for things like healthcare, and this is under the assumption I'd be subsidizing all sorts of problems other people face that I would very likely never have. I can definitely assure you I wouldn't be sitting here whining about subsidizing men if the roles were somehow reversed. I already help subsidize a range of activities I don't like with my tax dollars.

Get over your little male persecution complex already.

It's easy to have that worldview when you will be on the receiving end of those subsidies. Women tend to live longer, so you will most likely draw more on social security than you paid in, meanwhile way more men will die off before ever collecting a dime on their contributions. Your party gives no thought to men subsidizing women over their entire working lives, and instead focuses on every women's issue, no matter how small and petty, claiming there is a "war on women."  That certainly sounds like a female persecution complex to me.

[mencken]

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.

Yes, chemotherapy drugs and Adderall are both equally vital for all people to have access to, and the lab work of cancer patients and healthy 25-year olds are both equally vital.

[mencken]

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.

That ought not to be the case either. If you want a safety net for life-threatening medical conditions, then advocate that, but do not call it "insurance".

As an aside, I think women have considerably more control over whether they get pregnant than men do over getting prostate cancer. Fire insurance would be a lot more expensive if the insurance companies had to sell half of their policies to arsonists.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.[/quote]

I do not do so out of my own beneficence though; I do so to guard myself against the unlikely possibility that I will fall victim to the same misfortune.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?[/quote]

The point is it should be my choice whether or not to have such insurance, and what goods and services it should ensure. Obviously that would be an extreme minority viewpoint that would not prevail in a free-market for health care. Other, less life-threatening conditions would have a greater degree of consumer choice and discretion over coverage.

[Adam Griffin]

Jesus Christ this thread needs some health insurance, because it's just riddled with cancer

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

Except that by it's very nature it is a completely nonsensical and ineffective way to provide for insurance subsidies, since the more people who sign up for insurance and thus need subsidies, the smaller the amount available from the tax. The main reason for it was always as a penalty to get people to buy insurance, it's second use as one more revenue raising device among others almost an afterthought.

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.

Can't disagree with that.

[Hammy]

To anyone here that thinks its fine to deny coverage to others because you don't think you should have to pay for someone else's healthcare, remember the hell and harassment some liberals got in 2003 for holding that very same opinion regarding someone else's war--they were told if they want to live here, they should have to pay their part just like everyone else, even if they disagree with certain policies.

[Yank2133]

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.

Too be fair, noone really read ACA before it was passed, and in sure there were dems who didn't read this bill either before voting against it. My point is, that everyone in Congress sucks.

Hey, everyone bothsides!

[Indy Texas]

[HAnnA MArin County]

The same thing that Jesus did: he told those without health insurance to stop being lazy and to get a job to pay for their own health care and that it was not right for such "takers" to leech off those hardworking "makers" who've pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and are not looking for a handout and have been able to get their own health insurance. If they can get health insurance, the uninsured can as well! Only thing stopping them is themselves!

[emailking]

That ought not to be the case either. If you want a safety net for life-threatening medical conditions, then advocate that, but do not call it "insurance".

I mean it is what it is. You're arguing semantics here. A safety net, a tax, insurance, whatever. Personally, I'd prefer England's system. But right now we have mandated insurance and I don't see why I should call it something else. It's effectively all of those things.

As an aside, I think women have considerably more control over whether they get pregnant than men do over getting prostate cancer. Fire insurance would be a lot more expensive if the insurance companies had to sell half of their policies to arsonists.

I suppose looking over the very minute fact that burning your home to collect the insurance money is illegal.

And almost all men get prostate cancer eventually if their health allows them to live long enough. So eventually they'll likely make a lot of medical claims for either that or something else.

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.

Except that by it's very nature it is a completely nonsensical and ineffective way to provide for insurance subsidies, since the more people who sign up for insurance and thus need subsidies, the smaller the amount available from the tax. The main reason for it was always as a penalty to get people to buy insurance, it's second use as one more revenue raising device among others almost an afterthought.

I thought his argument was that the amount was so small that it could be seen as a tax, regardless of what Congress had in mind when they wrote it. Regardless, it doesn't matter if it's ineffective and nonsensical. I don't really agree that is is. But even if it is, that's the SCOTUS interpretation of the law. We're all bound to it.

[Badger]

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.

Yes, chemotherapy drugs and Adderall are both equally vital for all people to have access to, and the lab work of cancer patients and healthy 25-year olds are both equally vital.

The question isn't whether or not they're equally vital, but that they are both in their own ways vital. Speaking as someone with a pretty extreme case of ADHD and frankly could not do my job without my medication and just be a productive tax-paying citizen comma it is pretty damn vital to me, as his health insurance to subsidize its costs

Why the hell should all items be equally vital in healthcare before they are subsidized? That makes zero sense. If they are vital, make them financially available. Why the frick is this such an impossible concept for anyone on the American hard right to embrace? Genuine question.

[Badger]

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.

That ought not to be the case either. If you want a safety net for life-threatening medical conditions, then advocate that, but do not call it "insurance".

As an aside, I think women have considerably more control over whether they get pregnant than men do over getting prostate cancer. Fire insurance would be a lot more expensive if the insurance companies had to sell half of their policies to arsonists.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

I do not do so out of my own beneficence though; I do so to guard myself against the unlikely possibility that I will fall victim to the same misfortune.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?[/quote]

The point is it should be my choice whether or not to have such insurance, and what goods and services it should ensure. Obviously that would be an extreme minority viewpoint that would not prevail in a free-market for health care. Other, less life-threatening conditions would have a greater degree of consumer choice and discretion over coverage.
[/quote]

Your arguments in this thread were awfully s***** to begin with, and then you just had to screw the pooch and compare childbirth two arson, didn't you?

[mencken]

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.

Yes, chemotherapy drugs and Adderall are both equally vital for all people to have access to, and the lab work of cancer patients and healthy 25-year olds are both equally vital.

The question isn't whether or not they're equally vital, but that they are both in their own ways vital. Speaking as someone with a pretty extreme case of ADHD and frankly could not do my job without my medication and just be a productive tax-paying citizen comma it is pretty damn vital to me, as his health insurance to subsidize its costs

Why the hell should all items be equally vital in healthcare before they are subsidized? That makes zero sense. If they are vital, make them financially available. Why the frick is this such an impossible concept for anyone on the American hard right to embrace? Genuine question.

The problem is that these are fundamentally scarce resources - not everybody can possible get all the health care they desire. There is always going to be some sort of rationing mechanism to allocate it - the question is whether you desire that to be a market or a bureaucratic review board deciding whether or not your claim is medically necessary.

Your arguments in this thread were awfully s***** to begin with, and then you just had to screw the pooch and compare childbirth two arson, didn't you?

While the acts in and of themselves are dissimilar, the point is that both are fundamentally uninsurable events, as the party being "insured" has complete control over whether the event happens to them. If that analogy is too difficult to comprehend, would you prefer that I compare it to a casino that has latitude to change what cards are dealt after the bet has been placed?

[emailking]

While the acts in and of themselves are dissimilar, the point is that both are fundamentally uninsurable events, as the party being "insured" has complete control over whether the event happens to them. If that analogy is too difficult to comprehend, would you prefer that I compare it to a casino that has latitude to change what cards are dealt after the bet has been placed?

I get the analogy as you intended it. The problem is that it is a very faulty analogy in that your scenario involves violent illegal activity.

[elcorazon]

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.

this is a horrible analogy. Under the concept you just described, insurance companies are going to offer a "cheap policy that covered only conventional treatment for cancer" and other life threatening illnesses (not sure that's ever happened in history, but ok) 1. you really think that would be CHEAP? 2. Interesting list of things not to cover: Prescription drugs? that can cost thousands, even for relatively minor non-life threatening issues like psoriasis. How about back problems? lab work? what exactly are you even saying? 3. are you comparing mental health care to foie gras?

this is a hilariously ridiculous comparison.

[Hermit For Peace]

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.

Too be fair, noone really read ACA before it was passed, and in sure there were dems who didn't read this bill either before voting against it. My point is, that everyone in Congress sucks.

I don't think Bernie sucks. There are a few good ones in there. Their voice just gets drowned out by all the bad apples.