Republicans release Obamacare replacement bill

I think Trump should separate himself from the embarrassment of the replacement bill by tweeting out support for Single Payer. It'll cause a fight within his own party that both his supporters and democrats will enjoy. It'll also pull in Bernie supporters and even Bernie himself. He should start tweeting the sh#t out of Single Payer, saying it's time, we're doing it.

Prediction, it's not going to be much better than Obamacare but neo-conservative Trump supporters are going to champion it anyway

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Prediction, it's not going to be much better than Obamacare but neo-conservative Trump supporters are going to champion it anyway

Because that's so predictable, I think Trump should start tweeting support for Single Payer... every time someone brings up Russia, he could pivot to Single Payer. That's the advice I'd be whispering into his ear. He loves to fight... Take on the Single Payer fight and be a winner in the history books as the President who brought Universal Healthcare to the masses.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

If you don't have insurance, or even want insurance, that should be your choice.

But if you find yourself suddenly ill with a disease and expect to pay close to nothing, then you'll be upset.

Healthcare is a choice, not a right.

Health care should absolutely be a right in a civilised society. Why should a child die of leukemia because his parents are poor? I don't want to live in a world where people moan about paying slightly more tax to save the lives of those not fortunate enough to pay their way out of cancer.

Sickening.

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

If you don't have insurance, or even want insurance, that should be your choice.

But if you find yourself suddenly ill with a disease and expect to pay close to nothing, then you'll be upset.

Healthcare is a choice, not a right.

Health care should absolutely be a right in a civilised society. Why should a child die of leukemia because his parents are poor? I don't want to live in a world where people moan about paying slightly more tax to save the lives of those not fortunate enough to pay their way out of cancer. It should be a basic tax system which contributes to a central pot. Like in the UK.

Sickening.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

If you don't have insurance, or even want insurance, that should be your choice.

But if you find yourself suddenly ill with a disease and expect to pay close to nothing, then you'll be upset.

Healthcare is a choice, not a right.

Health care should absolutely be a right in a civilised society. Why should a child die of leukemia because his parents are poor? I don't want to live in a world where people moan about paying slightly more tax to save the lives of those not fortunate enough to pay their way out of cancer. It should be a basic tax system which contributes to a central pot. Like in the UK.

Sickening.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Rights are not things that rely on others.

A right that "exists" because of others is not a "right."

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fencesitter85

Rights are not things that rely on others.

A right that "exists" because of others is not a "right."

The right to bear arms relies on gun manufacturers/retailers. The right to a free press relies on newspapers. The right to free association relies on others wanting to make deals with you.

a reply to: fencesitter85

When you get down to the basics every American and non-american already has Health Care. You walk into an emergency room with a broken arm and it will be repaired.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fencesitter85

Rights are not things that rely on others.

A right that "exists" because of others is not a "right."

We'll I disagree in this context. Enabling those less fortunate than ourselves to avoid needless death at the expense of SLIGHTLY MORE tax is a no brainer. The amount of selfish scum I've seen saying WHY SHOULD I CONTRIBUTE TO SOMEONE ELSE'S HEALTH CARE makes me sick to my stomach. Makes me wonder if they'd feel the same if they got made redundant then their wife got cancer. Utterly disgusting, selfish attitude to the world.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: fencesitter85

When you get down to the basics every American and non-american already has Health Care. You walk into an emergency room with a broken arm and it will be repaired.

But you can't get preventative or ongoing care at an ER. ER's also have much higher costs associated with them, and when people don't pay the hospitals use it as a tax writeoff, effectively increasing costs for everyone else.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: fencesitter85

When you get down to the basics every American and non-american already has Health Care. You walk into an emergency room with a broken arm and it will be repaired.

Don't you get a big bill if an ambulance scrapes you off the road and takes you to hospital? Please correct me if ve misunderstood the situation

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: fencesitter85

When you get down to the basics every American and non-american already has Health Care. You walk into an emergency room with a broken arm and it will be repaired.

Don't you get a big bill if an ambulance scrapes you off the road and takes you to hospital? Please correct me if ve misunderstood the situation

YES.. You get a bill from the Ambulance service, the hospital, and the medical doctors who treat you. You can negotiate the Bills to much lower amounts, and you can set up regular payments to eliminate them. But if you're "scraped up off the road", you're looking at huge medical bills. Paying them will be like having another car payment, and take many years to eliminate.

The point I was making is that people scream, "Don't take away my healthcare!", or "Without Obamacare, we won't have healthcare!" are flat out WRONG.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

It would be nice to be able to buy insurance any time in the year, not the insane end of year enrollment periods, but a 12-month look back seems fair. Especially in lieu of the mandated penalties.

The '12-month lookback' is another word for 'mandate'. And it will be much more costly than the existing ACA mandate.

Most importantly, there should also be a 1 year exclusion on Pre-existing conditions, if you go for 3 months without health insurance, and didn't have a good reason for doing so. (Like being in jail)

Without that Pre-Existing Condition Exclusion period, too many people will wait until they get sick, then enroll in a plan, gladly paying the meager 30% penalty. After being "healed", they'd drop the plan until the next medical need arises.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

It would be nice to be able to buy insurance any time in the year, not the insane end of year enrollment periods, but a 12-month look back seems fair. Especially in lieu of the mandated penalties.

The '12-month lookback' is another word for 'mandate'. And it will be much more costly than the existing ACA mandate.

Most importantly, there should also be a 1 year exclusion on Pre-existing conditions, if you go for 3 months without health insurance, and didn't have a good reason for doing so. (Like being in jail)

Without that Pre-Existing Condition Exclusion period, too many people will wait until they get sick, then enroll in a plan, gladly paying the meager 30% penalty. After being "healed", they'd drop the plan until the next medical need arises.

It is only fair that everyone pay and maintain coverage full time. Yes, the 30% is a mandate. But, if you get sick without coverage, you are treated. Yes, you will be billed, but, if you can't pay it drives the costs up for everyone else. For those that don't like the mandates or don't feel like they should pay for others, my comment is, have some compassion for others. Insurance is a group thing. We are in this together. There will be winners or losers.

I was in an argument over this with another employee at work. He told me that since I was overweight that I should not be allowed to purchase insurance as it drove everyone else's cost up as I was a high risk. My reply was that since both you and your wife smoke, shouldn't I insist that if either of you have heart disease, lung disease or cancer from a smoking related cause that your insurance should be void and you should pay the full tab. He did not see why that should be and felt that overweight was different....I give up....Either we are all in and sharing the costs collectively, or we are all out and on our own hoping we don't lose the bad health lottery.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Aazadan

Nothing--neither Obamacare nor this--will be sustainable. That's what happens when government gets involved.

originally posted by: xpert11
Government interference in the market place has made housing affordable in New Zealand and wrecked the health care market in the USA.

I assume that you meant "unaffordable" in that sentence. If so, that sucks for New Zealand, for sure, but it's the same with government-funded housing here in the U.S., too--not that it's unaffordable, but to keep it affordable, it's generally run-down and mismanaged and, quite honestly, an embarrassment for people to live in. And I think that it is this way because to keep it affordable (heavily subsidized), the government must jettison proper maintenance because of the cost of administering the program, and I don't think that is an appropriate trade off at all.

The GOP may inadvertently open the door to the US adapting a single payer system. If the GOP Congress passes their version of Obamacare into law the healthcare insurance "market" will pan cake. The dems will use the self engineered destruction of the health insurance market place to justify a single payer system.

I question the reality that, even on the GOP's side, that the single-payer result would be inadvertent. It's becoming more and more apparent to anyone paying attention that both the GOP and the DNC talk really big games, but in the end, tend to make the exact same "mistakes" that end up giving the federal government more and more control over the lives of American citizens.

I'm hard-pressed to consider that a coincidence anymore.

originally posted by: olaru12
Not going to happen as long as the GOP is all in for the Corporate Oligarchy. Health Care is a for profit enterprise and that's simply not gonna change. Corruption, sweet appointments to the board, and kick backs rule the day. It's capitalism.

No, that is Crony Capitalism. There's a massive difference between the two, and it's pretty bad when people can't (or, is often the case, choose not to due to ideology) distinguish between the two.

It's amusing how the implication in your statement is that a socialized form of government control would be less corrupt.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I indeed meant unaffordable housing. The average house price in Auckland is 1 million dollars. Hell , even where I live in Invercargill housing prices have gone up 17% in the last few months.