Posted on 10/13/2018 6:23:53 PM PDT by Bellflower
Everywhere the opposition has ads poured out about how heartless the evil, mean Republicans are. They want to take healthcare away from poor, poor people with preexisting illnesses. All they care about are big corporate insurance companies. They are dirty, and bought and payed for by them.
If you are a good and decent person with any kind of heart at all you will vote for the good and decent Democrat, who cares about people and doesn't want to kill them.
Besides, really frightening, is the possibility that you or someone you care about could be, or eventually become one of those with a preexisting health condition. If so, you can be sure those evil Republicans will heartlessly leave you and your love one to die, too.
This pops up everywhere, but I haven't heard any Republican rebuttals. Maybe they are out there, but I haven't run into them. This seems to be the opposition's main ammunition. They have next to nothing but this tear jerker. They are trying to cause people to feel that if they are decent human beings they must vote for the lovely, compassionate Democrats, who care about people over big corporate insurance companies.
OK, isn't it obvious that since this is their constant drumbeat, their main ammo against us, that we need to address this, and address it fast, completely and convincingly? We need to target people's hearts, as well as their minds. We need to fight fire with fire.
What say all of you?
Well, no. It's people who have a medical condition and who, because of job change or some other reason, have to give up their current coverage and find another. That is by far the most common reason.
Then I wish he'd release it. Because right now the GOP has nothing that does.
By whom?
I honestly think that the only reason why McCaskill is as close as she is is because she is hammering Hawley on his part in the Obamacare lawsuit and its impact on pre-existing conditions. And all Hawley can respond with is that he really does support it, but he can't point to anything he would do to protect pre-existing condition coverage.
Charity care has been traditionally a religious or town/city responsibility.
"Reduce costs, reduce taxes, take away the “individual mandate,” but still ensure people that want healthcare have the ability to purchase it"
That's the plan.
The whole problem, succinctly stated, in one clever, incoherent sentence.
The reason the Republicans can't crack this nut, in fact, the reason their party won't exist as a single party by 2024, is that they are divided and unable to be reconciled over the contradiction so ably stated above.
"Ensure people that want healthcare have the ability to purchase it" Let's break it down.
Nobody "wants" "healthcare" (whatever that is). I suppose the author of the sentence means "health insurance".
People either need health care (meaning, hospitalization, surgery, medications, and nursing services), or they don't. WHEN they need it, they want it (or are too sick to know they do), but when they don't need it, they most certainly don't WANT it.
When people NEED hospitalization, surgery, medications, and nursing services (and notice how much people don't want to think about that - they invented the euphemism "healthcare" to describe it) - when they need it, "having the ability to purchase it" is absolutely, totally, 100% completely the last thing on their minds. So is organizing society so that it will be available. What is on patient's minds at the point of need is death, or life - disability and disfigurement, or recovery. They do not know, or care, who pays, or how.
So, the Democrats have resolved the philosophical question that comes before the practical problem. They want to ensure that "healthcare" (by which they mean services) is given to all by the government without regard for ability to purchase (pay for) it.
Whether this is right or wrong, smart or stupid, practical or akin to skittles from unicorns is not my point. My point is that they have resolved the contradiction embedded in "lower costs, lower taxes, no mandate, ensure ability to purchase (pay for it) for 100% of the population". The Democrats know what they want, and they are united and determined to have it.
The poor, stupid Republicans, OTOH, are divided about the underlying premise. They really do want health insurance to be cheaper without the lost revenue being made up by taxes, and they want no requirement to have it, BUT they also want "people that want healthcare" (again, whatever that means) to "have the ability to purchase it".
This is incoherent. If hospitals, surgeons, drug manufacturers and nurses do not get paid for their services, they will no longer be available. Many, many people who NEED (and therefore "want") those services cannot pay 1% of what they cost.
"Ensuring that people that want healthcare have the ability to purchase it" either means cheap insurance that doesn't cover anything OR nationalization of the resources to deliver care to those who cannot, or will not, pay.
There is no middle ground. The Democrats know what they want. The Republicans don't.
As Sun Tzu said, "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
The Republicans do not have a real plan because they do not have a philosophy that can support their opposed goals of more freedom for the well and perfect security for the sick.
And what makes you think they can step up now and replace other healthcare sources?
“So if you want to penalize people with health issues like diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, etc, are you going to offer to help them pay for the care you don’t want them to have? “
How is “coverage” for pre-existing conditions NOT charity?
If you say “pre-existing conditions must be covered by insurance” what you are saying (in part) is that you do not want insurance to be available to people who may be able to afford it otherwise.
Pre-existing conditions, to the extent that there is reasonable way to insure them for that specific condition, is charity and/or means-tested government welfare.
Nobody wants sick people to not get care. But just saying “I want someone with a genetic defect to get medical care” does not confer to you a moral high-ground if what you are saying is “I’m pricing health insurance out of your reach (and therefore medical care for you and your family) because someone has a genetic defect”.
I think it would be a great idea to work with.
I think it would be a great idea to work with. If towns and cities stopped funding homeless shelters and focused on the health care of its charity cases, it would be good
Also calling welfare charity would help.
This is what made ObamaCare so beautiful, when you get to the heart of it: it screwed younger people (mostly Democrats) to pay the medical bills of older people (mostly Republicans).
This is the REAL reason why the GOP has never been able to repeal ObamaCare.
Anyone who thinks preexisting conditions should be covered by insurance doesn’t understand what insurance is. If you wrecked your car yesterday, you don’t go out and buy insurance and expect to be paid to have it fixed. Unless you’re dumb enough to be a democrat.
Insurance plans group or individual are based on risk. It’s not insurance if high and low risk are treated the same.
The response to leftists is to remind them that they can go on Medicaid. If someone faces a catastrophic illness, they will, in most circumstances lose their job and qualify for Medicaid. If they are over 65, they qualify for Medicare. If they become disabled, they typically qualify for Medicare social security disability. Most of these cancer patients shilling in TV for the Dems are probably operatives and not likely cases where they could not receive treatment.
Now, for non-catastrophic expenses, we should promote tax deferred health savings plans encourage individuals to use their own money in these accounts for routine expenses. This would create price discovery and lower prices via competition. Allowing wealthier seniors to opt out of Medicare and private contracting with all physicians would also create more free markets within health care.
Of course, being a liberal means you reflexively reject logic especially free market solutions.
You can’t “insure” against a pre-existing medical condition any more than you can write a collision insurance policy on a car after it’s already been wrecked.
It isn’t insurance, it’s welfare. Typical neo-Bolshevik strategy. “Vote for me and you’ll never have bear responsibility for any of your personal shortcomings.”
It’s not a guarantee of Equal Opportunity, it’s a guarantee of Equal Outcome.
Thank you all for many very thought provoking replies.
Right now, my major concern is that this issue needs to be addressed in this election quickly.
The Democrats are bankrupt as to issues to draw the masses in. This is pretty much all they have. We must take them down on it.
I hope people in power read this thread and the thought provoking and address this issue fast. I hate to think that we might lose seats over this. And it definitely should be addressed as it does impacts a lot of people.
What I think needs to change is having children up to 26 years old on your policy.
That was my situation. Worked for the company for 22 years. Despite taking damn good care of myself developed diabetes- genetic.
Then laid off. Closed the place. No one would cover me, ‘pre-existing condition’.
When you are in that type of situation, nothing else matters. Same thing if it was my kid and the company I worked for faithfully went belly-up... what answer does the Republican party have?
Not talking the lazy idiots who smoke, eat crap, never even run a 10K and then expect me to help pay for their heart attack, I’m not saying we should cover some fat slob 20 pounds over weight who would’t know a barbell from a kettlebell, but if you’ve played the game by the rules you were taught then either we should say ‘here is how we will cover you’ or admit that you should just go and die after exhausting all of your resources since, from a purely capitalist viewpoint, the only value you have is economic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.