I don't have an answer but I would prefer an attempt at health care legislation instead of a mandatory 3rd party insurance scheme.
You are really struggling with this. A single payer wasn't going to happen for two major reasons: There were too many people who were happy with their current insurance and were not willing to pay extra. I dont blame them no more than I blame the people who wanted their high risk illnesses covered. Its the nature of the beast. The insurance companies were not going to simply roll over and let the government socialize their industry. I keep hammering on this; If you want to kill the beast, you do not give it more power. But yet some people still think we should just "regulate" the insurance companies more. How much more regulation can be done? Force them to stay in? If we had socialized the high risk pool only, then the insurance companies would never have cared. After several years and the problems were ironed out, we could implement a public option if the private insurance companies were not being competitive. Socializing the high risk pool would have forced everyone to deal with costs. It also provides leverage against the private health care to offer quality care to ensure a public option would never be considered. If Obamacare fails, EVERYONE loses.
It should be obvious to anyone with even half a brain. You're really asking me what's anti-conservative about adding a huge federal government tax that requires people to purchase health insurance and vastly expands entitlement programs while creating new entitlements? Seriously? Are you even trying?
I think what people struggle with is that healthcare does not work as a free market because people will not make rational choices when the decisions are about pain, suffering, illness and death. And it certainly will be rationed. If you want to call it death panels go ahead but life and death choices will be made by cost. "do we sell the farm to get Pawpaw a new liver?" "well he's 75 and had a good life, let's let him go I guess" "but it's his farm and he don't want to die"
Some portion of the 60 senators that eventually voted in favor of the PPACA, 58 Democrats and 2 Independents.
Agree that health care is extremely irrational. Part of that is people are extremely poorly informed about healthcare and death in general. A lot of people think death is a consequence of something gone wrong and should/can be avoided. Relatives, typically ones that aren't even close to the patient, are usually the ones to demand prolonged end of life care. It's usually to assuage their guilt that they weren't closer to the patient. The concept of death panels is so stupid to me it hurts. I've sat in on several palliative/end-of-life conversations with family members. We're not telling families their family member isn't worth continuing care; we're telling them it's probably not worth the patient's physical/mental suffering.
I am not anti-death panel nonsense and I agree there comes a point when a decision needs to be made, but lets not kid ourselves. It has nothing to do with physical/mental suffer and everything to do with cost.
How many years before ACA has there been a need for "health care legislation"? And since ACA passed, what republican health care legislation that includes coverage of pre-existing conditions has been proposed, let alone passed a republican controlled House and Senate?
Yes seriously. How is healthcare going to happen without a tax? Medicare is a huge entitlement program that I have demonstrated is going to be a very large expense very soon. The GOP doesn't actually care about taxes and deficits based on what they have actually done. Republcians didn't mind putting Medicare part D on the ole Uncle Sam credit card under Bush Jr.... You're story doesn't add up still. Keep trying kiddo.
Well there is also physical/mental suffering factored in, but if it becomes a government issue, cost will be first and foremost. Anyone who has had to deal with the VA knows that firsthand. Anything proposed or passed gets vetoed by Obama who is nothing but an obstructionist on the issue.
.....how did healthcare happen for thousands of years without a tax? Do you mean government run healthcare? It can't, but isn't that where we should be asking IF something should happen at all? Pointing at other massive entitlement programs and talking about how they are becoming a huge problem isn't a very good way to sell someone on an even more massive entitlement program....perhaps you should think out your position a bit better.....like just think it out any at all and that would be an improvement.
Well when your platform is anti government or whatever then you will drag your feet on an issue that requires government.
Conservative <> anti-government I think you are thinking of anarchy. The government should not do for people the things they can do for themselves.
What was the life expectancy for most of the past thousands years.... Should we return to a rural, agrarian economy so we don't pay welfare and everyone is employed? It seems folks want something to happen. You seem to stuck in a world that existed 50 years ago. Well because most folks like the way Medicare works. Even the GOP is smart enough to take on AARP. You act like we have to reinvent the wheel.
Love hypotheticals about Paw Paws. But here's a real life story. Little girl born with transposition of the great vessels (she was born "blue" and luckily the doctors immediately determine what was wrong and transported her to the world's best hospital. At day 5 she had a arterial switch operation at Stanford's Lucille Packard Hospital by the surgeon who performed the first heart lung transplant. Very successful operation, released from the hospital on day 11 (ten days faster than the previous fastest time). Although tracking a very small leak around a valve (not unusual even in "normal" people) she grew up normally, played soccer, basketball, swam competitively, competed in equestrian sports, was on ROTC drill team. Graduated, went to Lone Star, then Sam Houston State where she will graduate with high honors, and will go to U of H law school. Her dad was laid off, was out of work past COBRA, so had to buy insurance for his family. No insurance company would take her, and most would not even insure the family because of her pre-existing condition. Had to buy into the Texas State High Risk Pool at a $500 a month cost. Just for basic medical coverage for her (the dental and vision coverage was additional through the family plan). Hard to pay for health care coverage with contract positions and part time jobs at Home Depot and Office Max to make ends meet. I was able to get a permanent position after ACA passed (which also extended how long my daughter would be able to stay on my coverage). But once she enters the "real world", she will then be faced with the challenge of getting insurance with a pre-existing condition. Hypotheticals about Paw Paws are fun to read. And I know that sort of consideration faces lots of families so I don't make light of the decisions that are needed to make. But my decision about the medical procedures my daughter needed, and her health care coverage was not a difficult decision at all. It wouldn't be to anyone else either.
Well we can splits hairs on semantics but I think my gist stands. Yea your ideals don't work well in an industrial society.
I don't think anyone will argue that if we are going to make having insurance be a prerequisite to getting healthcare then obviously you can't deny people insurance. This fact does not make Obamacare any more effective. It only means that insurance will be costing more and more and the healthcare industry doesn't have to answer for it's crazy costs to the people it is providing services to. Question to your insurance co. Why is my insurance so high? Answer: Because of healthcare costs. Question to your doctor: Why does healthcare cost so much? Answer: Because of insurance. We are screwed....
Construct whatever narrative suits you. Doctors have a strong understanding of what the mental and physical toll end-of-life care is on a patient, the family and the healthcare team. We also have a strong idea of the odds a patient has of making it AND what their subsequent quality of life would be. It sounds like your metric is life or death and I argue that quality of life is every bit as important. I can site numerous examples from my own clinical experience of extraordinary measures resulting in no impact to the patient.
I don't think anyone is suggesting reverting back to medieval medical technology so your point is not valid (shocker). Point is you are vouching for a system that will bankrupt the country, I'm arguing against it in favor of something more sustainable. You always point out programs that are "about to be in trouble" like medicaid or medicare, programs that were the government just putting a toe in the government healthcare waters. You somehow can see that those programs are not doing well, but you still suggest the solution is to go all out and jump in the deep end....I just don't understand how people like you can come to those ridiculous conclusions.
