What is the current Republican position on this?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Travis has a pre existing condition.

 

[Unabogie]

No I don't think a complete new system with 1,000+ pages was neccesary to put in place a system where those with no money can get insurance ( for the most part this already exists, i know many people who have low income and they all have insurance, maybe this is a new NY thing) and to add some sort of assigned risk program for people who because of preexisting conditions cannot get insurance.

A second reason is I don't want people to be forced to buy insurance. If I choose not to (as I have in the past) it should be my responsibilty to take the risk of losing my home etc if a major problem occurs.

There are several problems with your position here, though I think your intentions are good.

First, you say that you want an insurance option for people with pre-existing conditions. That's fine, but if you offered that on its own, every insurance company will dump their customers when the slightest cough comes up. Either that, or they will lower their coverage to something that only resembles actual insurance in that the bill says "insurance". So how do you make sure that insurance companies will not do this? You have to stipulate how they operate.

Which is why your complaint about 1000 pages is so misguided. You HAVE to spell things out, or the insurance companies will avoid covering sick people. How can you not regulate insurance if you want to standardize it?

Next, you want all people who can afford insurance to be able to buy it. No pre-existing conditions, right? But if you do that, insurance companies will all fold. People will wait until they get sick, buy insurance, then drop it when they get better. The only solution to this is universal coverage where the pool of customers includes lots of healthy people. Which is why a mandate or something like it is crucial.

So basically, if you want to keep a market based approach instead of a single payer system, which is what "Obamacare" is, there is no other way to accomplish it. Look at any other country that still uses private insurers, and they all have the same basic rules in place:

Regulation of insurers, mandated insurance, subsidies for the poor.

 

[eeyore1954]

This describes a trickle down effect, I believe. The GOP would reduce overall costs of healthcare (primarily by reducing the number of people covered by taxpayer-financed plans of one sort or another) and then rely on the kindness of insurance companies to make insurance affordable for everyone.

Basically, they say the want healthcare to be accessible to everyone, but their plans would not achieve anything like universal coverage.

I also noticed there was nothing on that page about those who cannot afford it.

My point was the republican position is a far cry from

The republican position is that the reason you don't have health insurance is because you're a deadbeat.

or

The insurance companies can not be required to cover you, that might cost them money.

or

"Just go over in the corner and die quietly"

 

[PGH]

So I was imagining it when at the republican debates the moderator asked if someone without insurance should be left to die and the audience screamed "YES"?

 

[eeyore1954]

The problem isn't people who have no money (at least as long as Medicare and Medicaid are left intact). It's people who have some money, but can't afford health insurance because it's too expensive and they don't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. This is particularly a problem for people who are unemployed or aren't provided health insurance by their employer.


Except it's not your responsibility. It's ours. If you have a major medical problem and you wind up in the hospital, we pay for it because our society doesn't (and shouldn't) just let people die in the street because they either couldn't afford to or simply chose not to purchase health insurance.

Also, the mandate is one of the best ways to lower costs without a single-payer system (which I assume you're against). And let's not forget that the mandate was a Republican idea (until Obama agreed with it).

So again, what are your solutions that would make insurance available to everyone?

-Bri

This was my situation exactly. Self employed and unable to afford the 1,000+ month premium when you are sefl employed. But having to pay the mandate would also be a major burden on people in that situation. BTW President Obama should have called it a tax but I believe he wanted to keep his pledge about no taxes under 250,000.

What is wrong with personal responsibility in a situation like this. I still took my children to the doctor when they were sick (paid out of pocket), i did face a 4,000 emergency room bill for my wife and had to pay it.

In the long run I did save money because I never had a catastophic illness in the family but if I did I would not have blamed society if I lost my house/savings to pay for it.
Although in todays world with so many people underwater on their mortgages many do not have that "luxury".

 

[eeyore1954]

So I was imagining it when at the republican debates the moderator asked if someone without insurance should be left to die and the audience screamed "YES"?

All parties have some idiots in the "crowd" but that does not mean it is the position. I would bet if someone at a democratic speech said storm the homes of the rich and take their belongings there would be some in the crowd who would cheer for it. Certainly would not imply that is the position of the party.

 

[lomiller]

Is your income to high to qualify for programs like medicaid or medi-cal if such a program still exists? I guess you cannot find a job with insurance.

I am not really a republican but I believe there should be insurance available to everyone (sort of like for car insurance there used to be an assigned risk program) and it should be free to those who cannot afford it and a sliding scale for those with some money.

The only practical way to make insurance available to everyone is to make everyone participate in the insurance system.

It’s be the equivalent of letting people buy fire insurance after their house burns down, and still having the insurance company pay for the house. Why would anyone pay for insurance if you can just sign up after the fact and still be covered? If no one pays for the insurance, how does the insurance company pay the claims?

A second reason is I don't want people to be forced to buy insurance. If I choose not to (as I have in the past) it should be my responsibilty to take the risk of losing my home etc if a major problem occurs.

This is mutually exclusive with allowing everyone access to insurance. You can either force everyone to get insurance or you can give people the option to get insurance and not guarantee people can get insurance. You have to pick one option, you can’t mix and match.

 

[PGH]

All parties have some idiots in the "crowd" but that does not mean it is the position. I would bet if someone at a democratic speech said storm the homes of the rich and take their belongings there would be some in the crowd who would cheer for it. Certainly would not imply that is the position of the party.

I'd agree. Thing is that's never happened at a democratic debate. Why do you think that is?

And if I did hear that at a democratic debate I would have serious concerns about the party. Yes, we know all parties have some idiots. This seems to be the first thing said when republican idiots scream deplorable things at the top of their lungs, constantly. Both parties may have idiots, but one seems to be winning.

 

[Bri]

This was my situation exactly. Self employed and unable to afford the 1,000+ month premium when you are sefl employed. But having to pay the mandate would also be a major burden on people in that situation.

Presumably the insurance exchange along with the mandate would lower prices (although probably not as much as a single-payer system). Those who still can't afford it would presumably be subsidized so that they could afford it. Those who still choose not to get it would just pay the penalty.

BTW President Obama should have called it a tax but I believe he wanted to keep his pledge about no taxes under 250,000.

Yes, it's a tax on those who choose not to have insurance as an incentive for them to get insurance. Personally, I think everyone should be required to have insurance.

What is wrong with personal responsibility in a situation like this.

I can think of several things. Without a mandate, insurance is more expensive for those who do get it because presumably only those who are healthy would choose not to get it. In addition, without a mandate there is nothing to stop people from only getting insurance when they get sick (assuming you also require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions).

I still took my children to the doctor when they were sick (paid out of pocket), i did face a 4,000 emergency room bill for my wife and had to pay it.

If it was $10,000 or $100,000 would you still have been able to pay it? If something catastrophic were to have happened to any member of your family, would you have been able to cover it? Who would have paid it if you hadn't been able to pay it?

In the long run I did save money because I never had a catastophic illness in the family but if I did I would not have blamed society if I lost my house/savings to pay for it.

What if your house is worth less than the cost of the health care? Where would you and your family live without a house? What would you eat once all your money is gone? Who pays for your health care, housing, and food then?

Although in todays world with so many people underwater on their mortgages many do not have that "luxury".

Yup. So do you have a better solution that doesn't involve a mandate?

-Bri

 

[excaza]

Certainly would not imply that is the position of the party.

The crowd hand-picked by the party to attend the event in order to have a crowd completely full of people who agree with their politics? Certainly not.

 

[Dessi]

Have you been denied health care?

In Jan 2010, I had health insurance through my employer with Aetna. Due to some massive screwups in company leadership for 30 years, the company declared bankruptcy, so I lost my insurance. Right around that time, I had to make a lot of hospital visits, usually once or twice a week, and the cost was overwhelming to pay on my own (more so because I'd just lost my job).

I applied for COBRA, but the premiums were very high, they also didn't cover my bloodwork which cost $700 a pop. I didn't like having my insurance dropped when I move between jobs, I didn't like the high premiums, and the lack of service I got through COBRA, so so I applied for private insurance through Aetna.

Aetna promptly denied my application.

I called up their customer service, I asked what was going on, I was denied because, based on the prescriptions I take and why they take them, they inferred I may have an upcoming surgery. I told them that I was already an Aetna member, I'm already paying for their insurance through my COBRA, and they are perfectly content to take insure me -- this information, I learned, was irrelevant. So I can pay for Aetna insurance, but I can't buy a plan.

A few weeks later, I taken off the prescription which screwed me with Aetna. I immediately applied for insurance with Blue Cross and Blue Shield, I was able to leave off the one medication which screwed me with Aetna, my application was accepted.

tl;dr version: Aetna sucks, Blue Cross is better.

 

[eeyore1954]

The crowd hand-picked by the party to attend the event in order to have a crowd completely full of people who agree with their politics? Certainly not.

Do you have information about how the audience is chosen for the debate?

 

[eeyore1954]

So I was imagining it when at the republican debates the moderator asked if someone without insurance should be left to die and the audience screamed "YES"?

I watched the video on the debate now and I heard a couple of stray voices yell yeah when he was asked about let him die. The audience did not scream yes.
There were cheers before that point when Ron Paul said something like that is what personal responsibility and freedom is about.

 

[PGH]

I watched the video on the debate now and I heard a couple of stray voices yell yeah when he was asked about let him die. The audience did not scream yes.
There were cheers before that point when Ron Paul said something like that is what personal responsibility and freedom is about.

Another way of saying this would be: Yes I heard members of the crowd at the Tea Party debate calling for letting people without insurance die, followed by one of the leading candidates supporting this position.

You are also correct in that 100% of the audience did not yell out. Only a handful that were then applauded vigorously.

I'll believe the republican party does not support such a stance when they seem to actually not support such a stance.

 

[eeyore1954]

I'd agree. Thing is that's never happened at a democratic debate. Why do you think that is?

And if I did hear that at a democratic debate I would have serious concerns about the party. Yes, we know all parties have some idiots. This seems to be the first thing said when republican idiots scream deplorable things at the top of their lungs, constantly. Both parties may have idiots, but one seems to be winning.

Why do I think it is? Personally I believe fanatic Ron Paul libertarian supporters (because some of them would have that view) and you would never hear a question like that at a democratic party debate. Was a question like that ever asked at a democratic debate?

 

[PGH]

Why do I think it is? Personally I believe fanatic Ron Paul libertarian supporters (because some of them would have that view) and you would never hear a question like that at a democratic party debate. Was a question like that ever asked at a democratic debate?

I'll try to respond though I can't make heads or tails of your second sentence.

No you've never heard a "should we storm the homes of the rich and take all their money" question asked of democrats at a democratic debate. You've also never heard it yelled from the crowd. You brought up the example. You equated it to the question to the republicans of "should people without health insurance be left on their own to die?"

I explained to you the key difference. One is a question that was actually asked at a republican debate and responded in the affirmative by a leading candidate and much of the audience. The other is some nonsense you spewed out that no one is calling for, even a little. It doesn't make the two parties equal because you can make stuff up in your head.

 

[Snide]

Another way of saying this would be: Yes I heard members of the crowd at the Tea Party debate calling for letting people without insurance die, followed by one of the leading candidates supporting this position.

You are also correct in that 100% of the audience did not yell out. Only a handful that were then applauded vigorously.

I lean left, but the last bit seems to be ignored by those on the left, and shouldn't be. Further, Ron Paul actually started his answer with , "No,..." before being interrupted. So I'm not sure he really believes the person should be left to die by society.

 

[PGH]

I lean left, but the last bit seems to be ignored by those on the left, and shouldn't be. Further, Ron Paul actually started his answer with , "No,..." before being interrupted. So I'm not sure he really believes the person should be left to die by society.

He believes they should all rely on the kindness of churches to take them in. And he had no problem letting his campaign manager die uninsured and penniless. Because it would have gone against his beliefs for his campaign to have spent a few hundred bucks a month, per-person, to have his people insured. That's not his responsibility, it's theirs. If they get sick it's on them. So his campaign manager died of pneumonia, $400,000 in debt.

Ron Paul. The candidate for the incredibly stupid.

 

[Bri]

Was a question like that ever asked at a democratic debate?

The reason the question was asked at a Republican debate is that the inevitable conclusion of the libertarian view that everyone should be allowed to choose whether to have health insurance is that many people will opt to not spend the money on health insurance, and it will fall on the rest of us to either pay for their care if they become seriously ill or let them die.

-Bri

 

[eeyore1954]

I'll try to respond though I can't make heads or tails of your second sentence.

No you've never heard a "should we storm the homes of the rich and take all their money" question asked of democrats at a democratic debate. You've also never heard it yelled from the crowd. You brought up the example. You equated it to the question to the republicans of "should people without health insurance be left on their own to die?"

I explained to you the key difference. One is a question that was actually asked at a republican debate and responded in the affirmative by a leading candidate and much of the audience. The other is some nonsense you spewed out that no one is calling for, even a little. It doesn't make the two parties equal because you can make stuff up in your head.

He did not respond in the affirmative to should people without health insurance be left on their own to die?