What is the current Republican position on this?

[BenBurch]

The Republican plan for the uninsured amounts to "Just go over in the corner and die quietly"

At least that's the signal I'm getting.

That is not just the message they are sending, but how they actually feel about it.

 

[Drachasor]

My question is have they publicly condemned the "Let him die!" outburst, especially when it occurred at their own debate? If not, then this is a perfect example of how they are hoping to pander to the most extreme elements of the GOP without having the moral courage to call them out on that extremism.

People will remember this in the general election, I can guarantee it.

PGH found this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...out-the-uninsured-may-have-hit-close-to-home/

That said, as far as policies they endorse and ACTUALLY support the Republicans don't look good. They even found it far, far more important to have petty fights than actually work to have better health care in America. Ron Paul has unrealistic desires for how the system should work, with mystical charities springing up and covering everyone who isn't insured and can't afford emergency care costs rather than society footing the bill -- that dog don't hunt.

 

[eeyore1954]

My question is have they publicly condemned the "Let him die!" outburst, especially when it occurred at their own debate? If not, then this is a perfect example of how they are hoping to pander to the most extreme elements of the GOP without having the moral courage to call them out on that extremism.

People will remember this in the general election, I can guarantee it.

They should condemn it.

But they don't need to pander to that element. There are few who believe in let them die and those that due will vote against President Obama anyway.

They will remember it because it is already in a commercial.

 

[WildCat]

Before healthcare became the tangled mess of regulation and licensing we see today, people who needed healthcare but couldn't pay for it typically were NOT denied. There was a greater incentive for private charity back then, both because people were taxed less and therefore had more money and because they weren't already an accessory to forced charity, and thus the existence of charity hospitals (as well as lower rates across the board) were much more common then. Its not true that people would be dying unless the government mandates insurance. We have seen increases in the costs and decreases in the availability of healthcare since the regulations and public healthcare spending were foisted upon the industry, as we always see when the government interferes.

Health care cost much less in those days. Treatment was far simpler, and people died of old age at 60.

These days we can actually treat and cure diseases like cancer, rather than just shoot them up with antibiotics and tranquilizers until they die. Unfortunately, this costs far more.

 

[Travis]

My dad got prostate cancer. It took several procedures but they eventually beat it and he's been cancer free since.

But the cost? $120,000

How is charity alone going to provide over a hundred grand to help one person live?

 

[Neally]

So what is the Republican plan to allow all Americans to have access to health care?

All Americans already have access to health care, housing, food and anything else that is sold in the U.S. If you can't afford it, that is a different matter. Like anything else that you may want but can't afford, you'll have to do without, borrow from someone, find charity, or lobby for a law to be passed that will force someone else to pay for what you want.

 

[BenBurch]

My dad got prostate cancer. It took several procedures but they eventually beat it and he's been cancer free since.

But the cost? $120,000

How is charity alone going to provide over a hundred grand to help one person live?

My son cost about a million in medical expenses. Most was paid for by insurance, but what insurance did not pay was enough to force me to declare bankruptcy.

A Harvard study showed that 60+% of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. (This may have been before the housing meltdown.)

So a comprehensive national health system would undoubtedly reduce the bankruptcy rate, with knock-on effects throughout the economy.

 

[Travis]

All Americans already have access to health care, housing, food and anything else that is sold in the U.S. If you can't afford it, that is a different matter. Like anything else that you may want but can't afford, you'll have to do without, borrow from someone, find charity, or lobby for a law to be passed that will force someone else to pay for what you want.

I see, so you think someone such as myself wanting a law to keep myself alive is just a matter of me being some sort of freeloader?

 

[Neally]

I see, so you think someone such as myself wanting a law to keep myself alive is just a matter of me being some sort of freeloader?

I didn't call it that, but off the top of my head those are the options that I came up with if you want something that you can't afford. What would you call forcing someone to pay for something that you want?

 

[Drachasor]

I didn't call it that, but off the top of my head those are the options that I came up with if you want something that you can't afford. What would you call forcing someone to pay for something that you want?

That's pretty much the Republican stance.

You're a dirty free loader if you want access to something crazy like affordable health care. Please ignore how much cheaper and more cost-effective it would be to have a universal system! Dang hippies!

Also, please stop using the roads and other things provided for the public good.

 

[Neally]

You're a dirty free loader if you want access to something crazy like affordable health care. Please ignore how much cheaper and more cost-effective it would be to have a universal system! Dang hippies!

Also, please stop using the roads and other things provided for the public good.

So much straw in so few words. Travis asked about access to health care and I correctly pointed out that everyone already has access to it. Then he suggested that he wanted it free as in making someone else pay for it.

Affordable health care or reducing health care costs is a different matter. Unfortunately Obamacare really has done nothing significant to help with that. It's a much more complex and multifaceted issue that includes the cost of drugs, the cost of bringing new drugs to market, the costs of medical education, malpractice insurance, health care insurance, etc. Various GOP proposals have been offered to deal with bits and pieces of some of these, but various lobbies make large scale change pretty hard. You want less expensive health care, you'll have to travel outside the US to get it.

 

[BenBurch]

I didn't call it that, but off the top of my head those are the options that I came up with if you want something that you can't afford. What would you call forcing someone to pay for something that you want?

Why can't you guys see that there is a wide ethical gulf there?

Current situation; If an uninsured middle class person has a serious illness, whatever they cannot pay for is paid for by somebody. The doctors, hospitals, etc. that the person cannot pay must finally write off those bills. And because you cannot get routine treatment without money, you only appear for treatment at the ER, and those visits cost the hospital even more than proper care would have. This fails for several reasons; First, it is a tax upon health care providers that has never been recognized as such, Second it fails to provide even adequate care, and this causes ill people to deteriorate and become unable to work, and fall off the tax roles. Eventually, either die or they qualify for SSI if their illness is chronic, and get Medicaid, but by then it is usually too late for any real rehabilitation. Total cost of care far more than if proper care had been available.

Proposed situation; Everybody contributes taxes that go to fund health care that is available to everybody. Everybody benefits. The employer gets a healthier work force who can remain on the job for more years and experience does not get lost to illness. Employers also no longer need to negotiate with insurance companies for employee care, or directly pay for that care. Doctors and Hospitals no longer have to shoulder the burden of indigent care and can provide good preventive medical care to their patients without worry about if they are going to be able to buy the prescriptions he is writing for them. The country gets increased tax revenues that accrue from more people being able to remain in the workforce for longer. And people in general live longer, and are more prosperous. Total cost is likely going to be less than the total cost of the current "system" and even if it is the same cost, the results are so much better that you'd have to be some sort of sadist not to prefer them.

 

[Drachasor]

So much straw in so few words. Travis asked about access to health care and I correctly pointed out that everyone already has access to it. Then he suggested that he wanted it free as in making someone else pay for it.

Affordable health care or reducing health care costs is a different matter. Unfortunately Obamacare really has done nothing significant to help with that. It's a much more complex and multifaceted issue that includes the cost of drugs, the cost of bringing new drugs to market, the costs of medical education, malpractice insurance, health care insurance, etc. Various GOP proposals have been offered to deal with bits and pieces of some of these, but various lobbies make large scale change pretty hard. You want less expensive health care, you'll have to travel outside the US to get it.

You in fact pointed out how people DON'T have access to it. You don't have access to something you can't afford. I don't have access to a private jet. It isn't that they can't be bought, but I can't buy one with the resources I have. With Jets that's not a problem.

Of course, like roads, Health Care is a public good, so it really isn't worthwhile to look at it as the same sort of good as a private jet. Like I indicated, it is much more like roads, the army, or other infrastructure. Lots of people benefit from those even if they couldn't afford to buy them for themselves.

The Republican line is to look at it that way and to look uncomfortable when it comes to people who can't afford health care and what to do if they show up at a hospital. It's also their line to make proposals for reform, then when the Democrats try to implement them, to then object to their own proposals (e.g. tax on people who can get healthcare but don't).

 

[Travis]

So much straw in so few words. Travis asked about access to health care and I correctly pointed out that everyone already has access to it. Then he suggested that he wanted it free as in making someone else pay for it.

Wait, do you think I don't pay taxes just like everyone else?

Affordable health care or reducing health care costs is a different matter. Unfortunately Obamacare really has done nothing significant to help with that. It's a much more complex and multifaceted issue that includes the cost of drugs, the cost of bringing new drugs to market, the costs of medical education, malpractice insurance, health care insurance, etc. Various GOP proposals have been offered to deal with bits and pieces of some of these, but various lobbies make large scale change pretty hard. You want less expensive health care, you'll have to travel outside the US to get it.

Okay, so the Republicans are not offering anything more than what was done with Obamacare.

 

[Neally]

Proposed situation; Everybody contributes taxes that go to fund health care that is available to everybody. Everybody benefits. The employer gets a healthier work force who can remain on the job for more years and experience does not get lost to illness. Employers also no longer need to negotiate with insurance companies for employee care, or directly pay for that care. Doctors and Hospitals no longer have to shoulder the burden of indigent care and can provide good preventive medical care to their patients without worry about if they are going to be able to buy the prescriptions he is writing for them. The country gets increased tax revenues that accrue from more people being able to remain in the workforce for longer. And people in general live longer, and are more prosperous. Total cost is likely going to be less than the total cost of the current "system" and even if it is the same cost, the results are so much better that you'd have to be some sort of sadist not to prefer them.

That proposal has merits in reducing hospital costs, but how does it reduce the high costs of physicians and drugs? And "taxes" as in sales taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, or some other source?

Of course, like roads, Health Care is a public good, so it really isn't worthwhile to look at it as the same sort of good as a private jet. Like I indicated, it is much more like roads, the army, or other infrastructure.

I'm not part of the camp that defines whatever someone wants as a "public good" or "right". Health care, food, entertainment, housing, vacations are not rights that others should pay for because you want them and therefore define them as a "right".

Wait, do you think I don't pay taxes just like everyone else?

Unless all your medical care is covered by taxes to cover medical care, others are contributing more than you are paying, so yes, you are having others pay for something you want.

Okay, so the Republicans are not offering anything more than what was done with Obamacare.

I don't know about "offering". There have be various proposals as I mentioned, but the system remains excessively expensive.

 

[BenBurch]

That proposal has merits in reducing hospital costs, but how does it reduce the high costs of physicians and drugs? And "taxes" as in sales taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, or some other source?

...

I think faster than I type so I forgot part of it.

Remember the hospitals and doctors who were burdened with indigent care? They no longer are. This means they are not having to charge so much. Drug costs are a problem that would be a constant. Likely, however, you could make some dent in that cost if you would review the way drugs are approved.

Plus I have always felt that there ought to be a way to reject poor drugs sooner than we do now, and reduce the overall cost of the drugs that DO make it to market. Remember, the costs of 4 failures have to be built into the price of the 5th one that makes it. So, I would task NIH with coming up with a technological solution to the drug testing problem, and I bet the spin off science is worthwhile even if they never make it.

ETA: Taxes; I would do this as a flat rate that is added to the income tax and is set separately from the income tax rate. This burden is eased somewhat when you realize that we can do away with Medicare and Medicaid and most of what the VA system does because the National system would handle those patients.

 

[SezMe]

That proposal has merits in reducing hospital costs, but how does it reduce the high costs of physicians and drugs?

It's certainly not the Dems who have refused to let the government use its bulk buying power to negotiate better terms with the pharmaceutical industry.

 

[SezMe]

What would you call forcing someone to pay for something that you want?

If it's health care you're asking about, my answer is "society".

 

[SezMe]

As a general trend, medical care was cheaper in the past, the increases in price correlating to the amount of regulation in the industry.

Correlation is not causation. There have been large changes in the USA in the last several decades that have, I'm sure, played a significant role in the price of medical care.

 

[Travis]

Unless all your medical care is covered by taxes to cover medical care, others are contributing more than you are paying, so yes, you are having others pay for something you want.

Yeah, but wanting to live is not like wanting a chocolate sundae.