Jump to content

Obamacare doing in the Republicans?


Rozalia
 Share

Recommended Posts

Healthcare is a service just like any other. In my opinion, it's a privilege, as in, it should only be available for people that can pay for it. Honestly, people who can't pay for healthcare shouldn't have the ability to get it for free, as that is what they call a "negative return on investment". If you pay 30k a month to fix someones lung cancer and they make less than 50k/year, that's just a bad investment, the tax dollars you would gain from that person or their hypothetical family is not worth the cost of the treatment. However, if they manage to pay their dues to a healthcare company that covers the cost of sudden and serious illness, problem solved. 

 

people always go on about how 'healthcare is unaffordable', but that would totally go against corporatist thinking - corporations need to spread themselves to appeal to all sectors of the market in order to gain as many customers as possible and thus the highest profits. The reason healthcare insurance is going up is because part of it is subsidised by Obamacare, so the objective price that people are paying is yes, higher, but they only pay a percentage of that thanks to Obamacare. Realistically, it's the same reason why college is so expensive - the government is paying for your degree, not you. You just need to pay the government, and we all know what a headache that is.

 

Ahhhhh.... There is my free-market boner. 

 

Medicine has a history of ethics and charity to it, contrary to the absurd American belief that it is a business. I think one of the greatest challenges of medicine is reconciling Hippocratic roots of charity, service, and ethos against the advent of the modern for-profit medicine today. The argument of "if people can't pay for healthcare, !@#$ em" is hard for the medical community to swallow, especially when medical professionals think of themselves as empathetic. It is also against state and federal law for physicians to reject someone of lifesaving care, but I digress. 

 

Universal health insurance, as proposed here, is designed to fix your "negative return on investment" problem. Obamacare hopes that by having health insurance (and mandating it), you would use your health insurance benefits more often to get yearly checkups and detect that dreaded lung cancer early on for cheaper treatment. People who don't have health insurance don't visit the doctor, and detect disease in the later stages (which complicates health further), costing the state in expensive, life-saving emergency room visits (the state pays for those visits if the patient is unable to do so). 

 

Healthcare is expensive because the equipment and techniques of modern medicine is becoming more sophisticated and expensive. That cost is going up by a certain fixed amount over time due to better imaging technology and higher disease specialties among doctors, and people have already tried to calculate that. If you really want to reduce healthcare costs in the US, tell people to exercise more. Stop subsidizing beef and corn for Iowan farmers so that a 800 calorie cheeseburger and soda is cheaper than a head of cabbage. Improve education in the sciences and increase awareness for diet and nutrition. The best healthcare is preventative healthcare, because at the end of the day, a 20 minute diet consultation is closer to around 20,000 times cheaper than a coronary bypass.  

  • Upvote 1

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very simple question for a complex issue. In the same sense, I think it is a right. That being said, there are programs to help people who need help (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). I don't believe those should be removed, but there is always wasteful spending there which should be modified.  Most of the wasteful spending comes from medical groups committing fraud. They're smashed badly if/when discovered to have done that. A Dermatology clinic about five miles down the road overbilled and ended up with possible criminal charges and a $500,000 fine.It's certainly not a result of poor management. Medicaire/Medicaid are both administered very well and at about 50% of the cost of private insurers.

 

 

Healthcare is a service just like any other. In my opinion, it's a privilege, as in, it should only be available for people that can pay for it. Honestly, people who can't pay for healthcare shouldn't have the ability to get it for free, as that is what they call a "negative return on investment". If you pay 30k a month to fix someones lung cancer and they make less than 50k/year, that's just a bad investment, the tax dollars you would gain from that person or their hypothetical family is not worth the cost of the treatment. However, if they manage to pay their dues to a healthcare company that covers the cost of sudden and serious illness, problem solved. No, but sociopath identified.

 

people always go on about how 'healthcare is unaffordable', but that would totally go against corporatist thinking - corporations need to spread themselves to appeal to all sectors of the market in order to gain as many customers as possible and thus the highest profits. The reason healthcare insurance is going up is because part of it is subsidised by Obamacare, so the objective price that people are paying is yes, higher, but they only pay a percentage of that thanks to Obamacare. Realistically, it's the same reason why college is so expensive - the government is paying for your degree, not you. You just need to pay the government, and we all know what a headache that is. Insurance companies just expanded their pool by 40m people and then raised rates to try to convince people that the ACA was wrecking the system. It's not, it's just manipulation. The larger the pool the less the financial risk to the insurer.

 

 

Not talking about medical professionals here, but the health insurance companies. I understand that that is what the law is now, but laws can be changed. 

 

 

 

ok, sure, I concede, people don't take their yearly check-ups. But considering prior to Obamacare 85% of the population already had insurance, it's just a matter of people capitalising on services hey already pay for. It's just stupidity getting in the way, not people not having insurance. If the person who doesn't have insurance goes to the emergency room, and pardon me for not sounding empathetic enough, transfer him to the morgue instead. If some bum is taking up the ER because he has a non-contagious killer disease, then leave him alone. Different story if it is a contagious disease, but I'm getting off topic. The ACA brought 40m uninsured people into insurance programs. It's way too conservative, but we already have default single-payer in the most expensive setup possible so I guess we'll just keep burning money rather than just admitting we need a new healthcare system.

 

 

Or, you know, pay people more so they can, in turn, pay for these more advanced treatments. I see America has a serious problem with fair pay for fair work, where a steel worker gets paid the same as a barista, or that a dishwasher on double time gets paid more than a sous chef. I mean, sure, encourage people to work out - see how far that gets you. People in the west have a sense of entitlement and to an extent, invincibility, in the mentality that "oh, that won't ever happen to me", whatever that is. Not to mention laziness. Stop subsidising industries all together, it's not the governments job to support shitty business, it's the businesses' job to help and support each other. If you really want to piss off America you can straight up ban products you could deem 'gluttonous', like cheeseburgers, fried chicken and whatever else. You still have your healthy eating options, so there's a plus. It actually is the business of government to support price supports for products grown in excess to demand and then use it to give out to people already on welfare so it doesn't go to waste. We already practice socialism with most expensive and poor quality of it that's possible.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the wasteful spending comes from medical groups committing fraud. They're smashed badly if/when discovered to have done that. A Dermatology clinic about five miles down the road overbilled and ended up with possible criminal charges and a $500,000 fine.It's certainly not a result of poor management. Medicare/Medicaid are both administered very well and at about 50% of the cost of private insurers.

Yes, they're strict when they catch someone overbilling Medicare/aid. However, there have been cases where they have had wasteful spending. I'm not saying we should cut MedicXXX spending. However, the government should always be improving on the system. 

 

Edit: I think I should clarify. I am against the gov paying double market price in the link, not necessarily funding said objects. 

Edited by WISD0MTREE

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very simple question for a complex issue. In the same sense, I think it is a right. That being said, there are programs to help people who need help (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). I don't believe those should be removed, but there is always wasteful spending there which should be modified. 

 

Why don't just expand it to single-payer universal health care so that all people can be covered regardless their economic status? No poor people should be dying because they can't afford to pay the health care's bills anymore.

 

Healthcare is a service just like any other. In my opinion, it's a privilege, as in, it should only be available for people that can pay for it. Honestly, people who can't pay for healthcare shouldn't have the ability to get it for free, as that is what they call a "negative return on investment". If you pay 30k a month to fix someones lung cancer and they make less than 50k/year, that's just a bad investment, the tax dollars you would gain from that person or their hypothetical family is not worth the cost of the treatment. However, if they manage to pay their dues to a healthcare company that covers the cost of sudden and serious illness, problem solved. 

 

people always go on about how 'healthcare is unaffordable', but that would totally go against corporatist thinking - corporations need to spread themselves to appeal to all sectors of the market in order to gain as many customers as possible and thus the highest profits. The reason healthcare insurance is going up is because part of it is subsidised by Obamacare, so the objective price that people are paying is yes, higher, but they only pay a percentage of that thanks to Obamacare. Realistically, it's the same reason why college is so expensive - the government is paying for your degree, not you. You just need to pay the government, and we all know what a headache that is.

 

To be honest with you, the way you described health care as a privilege disgusted me to some extent. Do you not have any compassion towards those who can't afford to get health care? I think health care should be considered as a right for all people. Thus, anyone should be able to get it whenever they need it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't just expand it to single-payer universal health care so that all people can be covered regardless their economic status?

 

No poor people should be dying because they can't afford to pay the health care's bills anymore.

Because I'd like to have healthcare that doesn't suck. 

 

That's what Medicare/aid is for. 

 

cvi2u9n.png

Edited by WISD0MTREE

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd improve our healthcare. It'd be cheaper, more efficient and would no longer cost us so much. Why did you say "would make it worse" as if it's not already in place? it is, just with so many blocks it can't compete quite as well with private insurers. Single-paying and government healthcare already exist just at the highest available rates (because Republicans passed a law forbidding the agencies from negotiating costs like private insurers) for the most expensive healthcare in the ER rather than preventative (and cheaper) care being periodically available to people to use.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd improve our healthcare. It'd be cheaper,

 

more efficient and would no longer cost us so much. 

Citation needed. 

 

Aside from more specialists per 100,000 enrollees, lower prostate cancer mortality rate, lower breast cancer mortality rate, more MRIs, CT scanners, Lithotripsy units per 100,000 enrollees, spending more time with doctors, having more personalized/less patients per doctor care, and waiting less time for surgery, I'm sure it's just wonderful. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citation needed. 

 

Aside from more specialists per 100,000 enrollees, lower prostate cancer mortality rate, lower breast cancer mortality rate, more MRIs, CT scanners, Lithotripsy units per 100,000 enrollees, spending more time with doctors, having more personalized/less patients per doctor care, and waiting less time for surgery, I'm sure it's just wonderful. 

It is. Barely any waiting at all to get a surgical specialist booked.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not healthcare as a right but rights as a whole. The biggest stitch-up in the world, given arbitrary rights that are enforced by the will of the government only. Different case in America since you have guns, but everywhere else, governments can just remove rights from all their citizens. UN human rights aren't even enforced by the UN, so what s the point? Rights are a joke.

 

There exists no such thing as rights or privileges under the Laws of Nature. The deer being stalked by a hungry lion has no right to life. However, he may purchase life by obedience to nature ordained instincts for vigilance and flight. Similarly, men have no rights to life, liberty or happiness. These circumstances may be purchased by oneself, by ones family, by ones tribe or by ones ancestors, but they are nonetheless purchases and are not rights. Furthermore, the value of these purchases can only be maintained through vigilance and obedience to Natural Law. 

 

I can see you coming from more of capitalistic view, Laissez Faire Capitalism, right?

 

But let me ask you a simple question, will you not be bothered if you find your fellow human beings suffering? Are you just going to pretend that how nature works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare was a big compromise and is actually helping millions of people in a pretty capitalistic way. It's interesting to see capitalists being against Obamacare because it's basically evidence that capitalism can do good for people and can progress society towards more equal opportunities.

 

And yet everyone continues to become more extreme. Cut all health care. Let people suffer. That's how nature works. As if these ideological perspectives will improve life for anyone. It won't. That's not the point of those ideaologies. The real issue seems to be that people view the sick, old, disabled as leeches and should die out like nature wants them to. But you wouldn't be saying that if you were disabled, or if your mom was, or if your spouse had a pre-existing condition and was forced to pay more for health care than you out of no fault of their own. If you can stare your grandfather in the face as he dies because of lack of money for healthcare and still hold this view, then you are not in some way ideologically or morally superior. You are cruel and misguided.

 

What will become of us? Are we meant to just live by our instinct, to be prisoners to the whim of our primal desires? I would rather strive my entire life to achieve objective truth and caring for everyone, and continuously fail doing so, than allow humans to revert back to our primitive and savage tendencies that fascists and some alt-right people wish for. Enough with reactionaries.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It contradicts better quality data I've read at other times.

Such as? I mean, if posting absolutely no substance is acceptable, then it verifies better quality data I've read at other times. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has actually provided something to support his view. You have provided nothing. So you lose. Simple as that.

 

I'm not playing a game. If you want to say I lost and will stop posting your nonsense as a result you have my full support.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.