Trump/GOP election strategy - take away coverage for preexisting conditions

I consider it healthcare that I pay for with my taxes. My preference would be for every American to have good insurance that provides preventative healthcare. That would cut way down on the number of "walk-ins" at emergency rooms, in my opinion. Obama Care was a good start, absent a single payer solution, the solution that makes the most sense. It needs some tweaking, but the ACA is a hell of a lot better than nothing.

 

Agreed im not anti ACA
Another problem with saying its a right is sometimes people dont make healthy choices and there are sometimes
care limitss without discipline while their individual costs are skyrocketing. That has to be figured in overall equations but obviously that gets into judgement calls

 

Gee, if only if schools offered healthier eating options. And maybe providing healthy meals to children who otherwise would not be able to have such healthy options. And maybe even someone in the White House promoting healthy eating (especially to kids).

 

Bro i don't supprt Trump domestic policies and would really like to discuss some of these issues without going round and round on **** that isn't changing about him

Healthcare has to be sold on saving money. Nobody wants to hear about rights for people that have to be paid for.

Healthcare is a product. You have to sell organizing the system benefits everyone financially.

For instance a simple goal of the ACA should be standardizing procedure costs. I think it is a goal but that has to be sold on a costs/benefit analysis, everything about it really

 

And this is the reason your opinion on judicial review doesn't merit any consideration at all. You don't even seem to understand that the ACA has stood up to every single court challenge so far.

 

LOL, so your argument here is that it stood up to every single court challenge till it didn't? That's very convincing.

 

My argument is that it has stood up to every court challenge while you just keep assuming that it will be struck down. You make that same assumption a LOT.

 

Hmm... trust the turtle to be telling the truth?

 

This thread is about the courts potentially striking down Obamacare.....you realize that right?

 

Then bring up and pass new legislation to support protections for preexisting condition.

 

And you're assuming they will when there hasn't been any such indication so far.

 

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong:
You don't believe healthcare is a right because people aren't entitled to the labor of medical professionals, but you do believe people are entitled to the labor of emergency room medical professionals?

Secondly, you say you understand the cost implications of EMTALA (which are gigantic), but oh well, there are bigger issues at hand. Yet all of your other posts in this thread argue that healthcare is primarily a financial issue.

 

Yes emergency room access is a subject settled. Its not the ACA which tries to set universal standards for healthcare.

Healthcare is a financial issue because it could bankrupt the country. We can provide healthcare standards that normalize pricing. We are gonna give people things like emergency room access. The is standardizing the system and management.

Just because im for it doesn't mean i have to call it a right. Cities provide public transportation without calling it a right

 

Republicans cannot wait to get a Typhoid Mary to roam the country decreasing the surplus population . .. . . .

Rocket River

 

This thread assumes that will happen....because it is very likely to happen. Keep your head in the sand if you like.

 

In your opinion.

I'm not the one who allows bullshit artists to spoon feed my opinion to me, I leave that to fools like yourself.

 

LOL, this crazy kid....I don't know why I even bother with him at all.

 

I'm not doing this to be obtuse, I just don't understand where you're coming from; your statements seem self-conflicting.
Since healthcare could bankrupt the country (I agree), why are you fine with mandating emergency rooms as the only healthcare provider for the uninsured (which skyrockets premiums for everybody) but not fine with other mandates?

Are you saying emergency access is "settled" because it's law and we just have to accept even though it's financially stupid? Or you actually think it's pragmatic? Or you think that's the way is should be morally, regardless of financial impact?

 

Im saying you have to argue from a standpoint the ACA saves the government and individuals money or healthcare can bankrupt us.

Thats the universal everyone benefits argument. Some people view it as just a another welfare type program.

Just get away from what some poor person deserves healthcare rights type rhetoric. Lack of health is costing the entire country.

Do not wanna argue about emergency rooms or rights.

The argument is its a necessity for the financial health of America

 

@Nolen

Democrats need to stop getting caught in arguments about things like keeping your doctor. Its important to people but its not important to the goal of making the system more stable financially. There are pratical reasons people want a family doctor but having a family doctor is also not necessary to individual or universal health