|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
The reason is really very simple and was outlined by Newt Gingrich years ago. The party that is successful in getting a a single payer universal health care system in place is very likely to dominate the political scene for at least two generations, just as the Democrats did under FDR and Truman when they passed the bulk of the social safety net provisions. This is why the Democrats defeated the idea when put forward by Nixon and the Republican defeated the idea under Clinton. It is all about power. Jar, do you have a source for that quote? Just curious, I'd like to have a source before I start repeating that one. That said, it's historically true that successful major social programs will gain a party significant public favor, so I don;t exactly doubt the accuracy. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in fantasy la-la-land, where politicians cared more about helping the people they represent than whether they'll still be in Congress in four years? If we had enough reps willing to fall on their swords to get a single-payer option passed, and if it was successful, we'd all be better off in the medium and long term even if those reps saw a short-term conservative smear campaign. Oh well. That's just fantasy. On the positive side, at least health care facts have been floating around more than they used to. Statistics showing the inferiority of the US system are now passed around at Starbucks and are all over the internet; younger generations are being exposed to the idea that, maybe the US isn't so exceptional, maybe we don't do everything better just because AMERICA FUCK YEAH, maybe we can learn lessons from other nations. I wish we had billboards every 50 miles on every freeway in the country listing the per-capita costs of healthcare, the infant mortality rate, and so on in Canada vs the US. At least insurers can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. That will save lives - if I hadn't been able to put her on my insurance as a domestic partner, it would have saved my girlfriend's life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I wish I could find it. It was back when he was still minority whip or maybe after he became speaker.
It may have been William Kristol that originated the idea. From the Online NewsHour:
quote: Source More direct from the Kristol memo:
quote: Edited by jar, : add qualifier Edited by jar, : more information. Edited by jar, : fix formatting Edited by jar, : add link for source Edited by jar, : No reason given. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Objectivism Ding! Ann Ryn, Andrew Ryan and Richard Rhaal would be proud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
At least insurers can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. That will save lives - if I hadn't been able to put her on my insurance as a domestic partner, it would have saved my girlfriend's life. Yes they can: for at least another year. My ex-gf looked into getting off of BadgerCare (WI state health care) and was told by numerous insurance companies that she was too overweight to get a policy. She, having voted for Obama, knew about the health care legislation. She was reminded repeatedly that it doesn't wholly take effect until 2012. However, I have read *some* stories about people who normally wouldn't qualify for pre-existing conditions who were able to get coverage. Edited by hooah212002, : spelling "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
A lot of the talk about health care involves discussion about doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. However, a truly universal health care program mustn't simply be a reactive institution, where problems are only treated after they've developed; but must also be a proactive institution, involving public education and awareness of personal health, as well as legislation and taxes to better regulate the kinds of foods and products that people consume.
quote: When looking at other countries and their health coverage vs. cost data, I do not think we should leave out such legislation as that in Denmark and other progressive countries. One can only imagine what a 50% decrease in fatal ischemic heart disease would do to health care costs in the U.S.! Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jon writes: One can only imagine what a 50% decrease in fatal ischemic heart disease would do to health care costs in the U.S.! Jon It can only raise healthcare costs. The person that dies from a fatal heart attack will no longer incur health care costs. But yes, proactive can be cost effective. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
It can only raise healthcare costs. The person that dies from a fatal heart attack will no longer incur health care costs. Not necessarily. Do you have any idea how much effort is used(wasted) in the US to bring back someone that is effectively dead? I imagine a heart attack, even fatal, incurs a huge amount of costs. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Even if that were true, it is a one time cost. Someone that lives longer is a continuing expense.
My point is that planing by sound bite is seldom a good idea. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
a truly universal health care program mustn't simply be a reactive institution, where problems are only treated after they've developed; If I read this right (correct me if I'm headed in the wrong direction), this is, IMO, one of the single greatest factors of going to universal health care. Individuals will be able to get their pre-emptive care in a regular facility instead of flooding the emergency room because they or their children are sick and they have no insurance because they can't afford it. Yes, I myself have had to take my son to the emergency room because of the fucking flu! (it was persistent and with fever. Small children and high fevers do NOT mix) due to the fact that I had no insurance. Guess what the ER doc told me: "I'm not a damn pediatrician, take him to your PCP tomorrow. Here's some tylenol". "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
If I read this right (correct me if I'm headed in the wrong direction), this is, IMO, one of the single greatest factors of going to universal health care. Individuals will be able to get their pre-emptive care in a regular facility instead of flooding the emergency room because they or their children are sick and they have no insurance because they can't afford it. Yes, I myself have had to take my son to the emergency room because of the fucking flu! (it was persistent and with fever. Small children and high fevers do NOT mix) due to the fact that I had no insurance. Guess what the ER doc told me: "I'm not a damn pediatrician, take him to your PCP tomorrow. Here's some tylenol". Disgusting. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
hooah212002 writes: Individuals will be able to get their pre-emptive care in a regular facility instead of flooding the emergency room because they or their children are sick and they have no insurance because they can't afford it. I don't believe you. There are some people out there who truly can't afford healthcare insurance but you are not one of them. I am assuming you had a computer to post from at the time, even if it was terrible. You probably had a car, and I assume you were wearing one of several sets of clothing that you own. You probably also didn't live in the least expensive place or manner possible. In other words, you *could* afford healthcare insurance except you made a cost-benefit comparison and determined that it was just too expensive to be "worth it". You would have to give up too many other things to afford the cost, so you chose not to. Instead you think that you should be able to use a public service paid for in great part by taxpayers as a substitute; you want those insurance premiums that you dubbed "too expensive" to be paid for by other people who don't have a choice in the matter. The ER doctor was perfectly correct: he/she wasn't your damn pediatrician. You should have bought health insurance and you chose not to, and you didn't want to pay the doctor's bills out of your own pocket (which some people can). Before you start to whine about how "children *deserve*" whatever you will have to explain why you chose not to provide your child with proper medical care. That's really what it comes down to; your child had a need for medical care and you didn't provide for that need. You knew you couldn't afford the potential lump bill, but you didn't even set aside a smaller amount of funds in preparation. You completely ignored the problem in favor of sticking your hand in other people's pockets and you have the fucking gall to complain when an ER doctor calls you on the behavior. *That* is what is disgusting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
There are some people out there who truly can't afford healthcare insurance but you are not one of them. I'm glad you know my situation so well. I'm glad you know what kind of money I was making and how much insurance premiums would have cost me. You know so much about me that it's borderline creepy. At the time, I was the sole bread winner supporting my girlfriend and 3 kids, paying 2 car payments, rent utilities, etc. Have you ever priced insurance premiums in WI? Likely not. Otherwise you wouldn't have made such a harsh generalization.
In other words, you *could* afford healthcare insurance except.... Except that I couldn't. Or if I could, we wouldn't eat or be able to clothe our children. Or have to walk the 50 miles it was to work.
Instead you think that you should be able to use a public service paid for in great part by taxpayers as a substitute; you want those insurance premiums that you dubbed "too expensive" to be paid for by other people who don't have a choice in the matter. Because I'm not a taxpayer, right? Your response is what is disgusting. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
hooah212002 writes: Because I'm not a taxpayer, right? That isn't the service which your taxes pay for. If they did, guess what? You "wouldn't be able to afford it". And why exactly did you have 2 car payments? Why didn't you carpool together?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
There are some people out there who truly can't afford healthcare insurance but you are not one of them. I am assuming you had a computer to post from at the time, even if it was terrible. You probably had a car, and I assume you were wearing one of several sets of clothing that you own. You probably also didn't live in the least expensive place or manner possible. In other words, you *could* afford healthcare insurance except you made a cost-benefit comparison and determined that it was just too expensive to be "worth it". Just being able to afford a computer ($300), a low-end car ($170 a month payment), and rent at a decent apartment ($700 a month) and keep clothing on the back of you and your family hardly indicates such a surplus of income as to make family health insurance affordable, given that the mean family plan premium in the US is around $1200. I don't know of anybody who has enough fat in the budget to trim out another $1200, do you? (Maybe everyone you know is very wealthy. Most likely, everybody you know has the bulk of their insurance premiums paid for by someone else, like their employer.)
You completely ignored the problem in favor of sticking your hand in other people's pockets What do you think insurance is, stupid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: ...the mean family plan premium in the US is around $1200. OK? There are less expensive plans out there that have lesser coverage. Pointing out that I can't afford the cost of an average airplane doesn't mean I can't afford *any* airplane. Companies offer plans based on what the market desires, not some sort of arcane formula which will force the companies into offering products nobody can buy. If the average monthly payment for family health insurance is $1200 then apparently that is what the average family can and does pay. Furthermore, you pointed out that renting a decent apartment at $700 a month was apparently worth more than obtaining health insurance. You could perhaps find a tiny terrible apartment at maybe $300 a month (a single room rat-trap probably) and not have to worry about your child dying to the flu. But no, a choice was made there.
crashfrog writes: You completely ignored the problem in favor of sticking your hand in other people's pockets What do you think insurance is, stupid? Insurance is pooling a steady stream of income to offset a risk which can be mitigated by financial aid. Those who contribute are eligible to draw from the pooled funds should some relatively rare event occur. The entire system depends on most contributors not using as much money as they pay in, but rather offsetting the risk of a possible payment they wouldn't be able to cover on their own. It isn't just sticking your hand into other people's pockets without contributing yourself. Crashfrog, you fucking moron.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024