|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Republican Healthcare Plan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
On the other hand, people are going to have to start taking responsibility for themselves rather than relying on big brother to take care of them. I don't have much to add to this in terms of detail, and I know there's a debate to be had on the details. But as someone who lives in a country, where there's a healthcare service that's free at the point of delivery (barring some minor charges for prescriptions etc, and paying for cosmetic stuff), I'm not sure I recognise the big brother reference. We took a decision to provide automatic healthcare for all, and get everyone to pay some tax to fund it. That's not really symptomatic of a nightmarish, Orwellian dystopia. It's pretty cool really. And we're not even slightly commie 😉Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Likely there would be a "race to the bottom" as with credit cards. Insurers will find the state with the most flexible and limited regulation and move there. I read it as other states having an option, rather than a requirement, to accept out of state insurance.
quote: As long as State X's plan complies with State Y's requirements, then don't inhibit the sale of State X's plan into State Y. That wouldn't cause a race to the bottom.
Yes, and since health care isn't amenable to a free-market solution, I'm not convinced of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You are satisfied with... Stop it. I'll do me. You do you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm not sure I recognise the big brother reference. Rather than having the Feds run it, cut the peoples' taxes and give them the money and let them come up with their own solutions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Rather than having the Feds run it, cut the peoples' taxes and give them the money and let them come up with their own solutions. Cut what taxes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Still not a dystopia though.
I don't think that the government being in charge of running something, in and of itself, makes it undesirable. Especially when we vote the government in and out of power every so often.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
allows companies to use the worst regulations from the worst state across the entire country,
Does it? If state X has more regulations than state Y, then does state Y really have to accept State X's stuff? Yes. It's now legal for states to allow out-of-state insurance. Some do. The only way to change the situation Federally is to make it mandatory on all states. If there's an opt-out then a lot of states will opt-out (few want to give up their regulatory power) and the situation won't change. "Allowing sales across state lines" will be meaningless and ineffective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Sigh, "The plan is to have the insurance premiums be deducted from your taxes and the contributions to the HSA be tax-free."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't think that the government being in charge of running something, in and of itself, makes it undesirable. Having the government in charge of something makes it cost more money and take longer. Plus they're notoriously incompetent and careless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I'm not sure I recognise the big brother reference. It's US right wing dogma that aid to the needy harms them by encouraging them to avoid working and rip off the taxpayers. Ayn Rand stuff. The data shows otherwise, which appears to have no effect on the belief. Healthcare would be no problem if those people would park their welfare Cadillacs, turn off their 75" TVs, and buckle down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Having the government in charge of something makes it cost more money and take longer. Plus they're notoriously incompetent and careless. Medicare is much more efficient than many duplicated bureaucracies in private hands. And it has purchasing leverage no private company has. All sweeping claims are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Often, yes - and when this is the case, this is often as much a reason for improving the public service, as for privatising it.
Against that, public services benefit from being available to all, fair, and not at risk of corporate insolvency whilst being relied upon by people. So it's a balance. As I said, in and of itself, something being provided by the government doesn't make it bad - you always need to balance the pros and cons.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Diomedes writes: What 'works' is a singular system that is either partially or fully run by the government. Every 1st world country on the planet has recognized this except the USA. There are a mixture of approaches out there. The common thread is that prices are regulated by the government. They pay less because they don't treat peoples' health as something to make a profit off of. When you have a product that people can literally not live without (notice the proper usage of "literally" ) and you put that into a free market, what happens? Suppliers will increase prices as high as they can. That's what has happened in the US.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but that is still not an answer.
Is the plan to allow deducting insurance premiums from income tax? If so that is an annual event. You do not get the money before the fact, the government gets to hold your money for a year. Second, to contribute to any HSA you must first have disposable income that can be allocated to that instead of rent or food or clothes for the kids or all of the other expenses real people face. What if the insurance premiums are due monthly while any tax refund comes in annually? What if there is no disposable income to set aside for an HSA? How should the government make up for lost revenues created by additional deductions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1045 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
That's only half of it, though. Just because an insurance company is required to insure you doesn't mean that a healthcare provider is required to accept it. And that's exactly the problem that friends of mine who utilized Obamacare are complaining about: They have insurance now but they're having problems finding people who take it. How on earth is that possible? No provider should be allowed to refuse valid insurance. We have a legal concept of legal tender to prevent this kind of extortion,
Having the government in charge of something makes it cost more money and take longer. Plus they're notoriously incompetent and careless. Stop and think for a minute before spouting obviously false ideological slogans. We're discussing the US healthcare system, where everything costs a lot more than the UK's state run healthcare system. If you want to criticise the actual shortcomings of the NHS, then go ahead, but it is an uncontovertible fact that Britain's socialist healthcare is cheaper than the private system in the US. For that matter, every heathcare system in the developed world is cheaper than the US's, despite having more government involvement. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024