The AHCa's Still Alive and Kicking

Who were the moderate, Tuesday Group GOP House members who voted against the AHCA? Take ‘em down in their next primary so we can put a real Republican in their place! Who were the moderate, Tuesday Group GOP House members who voted for the ACHA? Invade their constituency meetings with iPhones blaring out Jimmy Kimmel’s viral story! And take ‘em down next time they’re up for re-election! And put a real Democrat in their place!

It was a not a very moderate week nor a comfortable week to be a GOP moderate it seems. But think of it this way. GOP moderates have given mainstream media of all types a nice cynical story to tell. Rather than saying ... woah, they actually did it, they can say: what do you think will happen to Charlie Dent over in Pennsylvania's 15th district? Will this hurt him? Will Trump go after his primary run? Will he be tweeted off the Hill? Will a real Democrat take his place?

That's what the ACA has done. For now. It has shifted what Americans think of healthcare. Or more precisely, what they feel entitled to in terms of health insurance. The GOP is trying to shift the needle. And this is a very real - if hardly overwhelming - victory in the sense of shifting the needle back the other way towards more options and less government oversight. Taxes and regulations will be pared back. And premiums may even not rise too too much. You can't say they will fall. Not until more time and more changes take place. But maybe they won't rise by too much more. Maybe.

But the narrative is all about a precious infant baby with a hole in his heart. How do you answer that in a human and compelling way while pointing out that before Obamacare babies were not dying across the country? At least not from a lack of treatment. Abortion is of course another matter. But liberals and progressives tend to want their babies outside the womb before allowing them the right to live. And if you're a liberal or progressive who is pro-life, you will be shut down and shouted down mercilessly by the gender-id activists who have taken over your party.

But the AHCA passed the House. Now comes the Senate and plenty of room for dark, foreboding forecasts regarding how the bill has no chance of passing. Reconciliation will be parsed down to the molecular level and the AHCA will found tragically wanting in terms of the Senate's arcane rules. But let's not declare the AHCA dead quite yet. It's outside the womb even, and alive and kicking. For now.

Posted by Keeley at May 5, 2017 4:45 PM
Comments
Comment #415787

Why Can’t The Market for Medical Care Work Like Cosmetic Surgery?

- See more at: http://healthblog.ncpa.org/why-cant-the-market-for-medical-care-work-like-cosmetic-surgery/#sthash.WnKsp8cL.dpuf

No government or insurance company involvement in most elective or cosmetic surgery has kept costs down and competition high. There is a lesson in this if we simply open our eyes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 5, 2017 5:35 PM
Comment #415788

Yes, if we repeal EMTALA and let people die in the streets, it will decrease the cost of health insurance for the rest of us. I have no problem with the radical individualist solution, but most Republicans aren’t comfortable with this.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 5, 2017 6:12 PM
Comment #415789

WP,
An individualist solution is fine as long as it is someone else who gets sick, and not me. In theory, we are all born with the same odds of developing an expensive medical problem. In theory, we all benefit from preventative care, and of course, preventative care is the cheapest medical care. That is why universal health care makes the most sense. It spreads the cost among everyone equally.

An individualist, market oriented solution treats human beings as commodities. An insurance company has a profit motive. The goal is to collect as much in premiums as possible, while paying out as little as possible. A sick individual interferes with the insurance company’s profitability.

There are some interesting discussions on the previous link provided by RF.

The bill passed by the House was shambolic. It was foolish to throw out something that bad. They obtained a very short term win, but that CBO score will haunt them for the next year. It will be interesting to see what the Senate proposes, or if they even bother. A House Republican said ‘the Democrats are the opposition, but the Senate is the enemy.’

Posted by: phx8 at May 5, 2017 6:35 PM
Comment #415790

Sorry you missed the point being made by my “elective surgery” post Warren. I won’t bother to explain further.

“That is why universal health care makes the most sense. It spreads the cost among everyone equally.”

Certainly makes sense if you want identical, only government bureaucrat approved, and sometimes rationed benefits.

Here’s a thought phx8. Let’s have government take over home building and rent control. Housing will be more affordable and we can all live in exactly the same homes. This year the government has approved only “red” paint.

Hell, we can do the same with food and nearly every other consumable product or service.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 5, 2017 6:48 PM
Comment #415791

OH, by the way phx8, “universal health care” never, ever spreads the cost among everyone equally.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 5, 2017 6:51 PM
Comment #415792
An individualist solution is fine as long as it is someone else who gets sick, and not me.

Yes, the individualist system is very harsh on those unfortunate enough to develop expensive medical conditions. Likely, it leads to people dying premature deaths as a result of treatable diseases.

In theory, we all benefit from preventative care, and of course, preventative care is the cheapest medical care. That is why universal health care makes the most sense. It spreads the cost among everyone equally.

Universal Health Care only makes sense if the utility gained from extending lifespans exceeds the value of the dollars expended. Unfortunately, it is far easier to see the benefits of ‘free’ health care and more difficult to see the associated opportunity costs. Maybe we are better off spending that $2T on developing renewable fuels or paying for every child’s tertiary education? Or maybe the private sector has better uses for that money? No one can answer those questions by himself, only the collective hive mind can.

But alas, it is increasingly clear that seeing their fellow citizens die on the streets causes quite a bit of distress, at least for Republicans. Likely, it is so much distress that it wipes out any utility derived from depriving lifesaving treatments from those who need them and investing that money elsewhere.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 5, 2017 7:04 PM
Comment #415793
Sorry you missed the point being made by my “elective surgery” post Warren. I won’t bother to explain further.

No, I understand. Under radical individualism, the patient is empowered by choice: He either pays for his lifesaving treatment or he ‘elects’ not too. In the latter case, he dies a premature death from his untreated disease. Because the individual dies rather than receiving treatment for his condition, the total amount of money spent on health care goes down.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 5, 2017 7:10 PM
Comment #415794

Missed it again Warren.

Think in terms of no government or insurance company involvement with resultant costs remaining relatively constant. It is purely consumer driven.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 5, 2017 7:20 PM
Comment #415795

RF,
Universal health care provides a base line. People wanting more or faster access to health care can pay additional for it.

WP,
There are several ways to pay for universal health care. Canada uses a sales tax. That will be advantageous for someone like me, who shops very little, but very expensive for my wife.

There is an upper limit on how much will be expended on an individual with a terminal illness. Basically, if the situation is utterly hopeless, no extraordinary steps will be taken.

Posted by: phx8 at May 5, 2017 7:22 PM
Comment #415796

“Universal health care provides a base line. People wanting more or faster access to health care can pay additional for it.”

NO…NO phx8. Please don’t tell us that the rich will get better care than the poor.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 5, 2017 7:33 PM
Comment #415797
Because the individual dies rather than receiving treatment for his condition, the total amount of money spent on health care goes down.

I’m bothered by my oversimplification, so I am going to explain in more detail. Jokes aside, I’ll use my personal myopia as an example:

For 18 years, I’ve worn corrective lenses to correct my nearsightedness. I could get LASIK surgery to permanently correct my myopia, but I’ve never chosen to do so. The reason I elect not to undergo LASIK surgery is simple, I do not think the utility gained is worth the price. By electing not to buy LASIK surgery I exert downward pressure on the marketplace. This gives the providers of LASIK surgery extra incentives to find ways to bring the cost down because the profits they stand to gain will increase geometrically rather than arithmetically.

Compare this with emergency heart bypass surgery, typically administered to a patient hours after a heart attack. Firstly, the patient is unconscious and unable to make decisions, so we perhaps talking about a next of kin being the decider. Now, if we try to apply the LASIK model to the emergency bypass surgery, we present the next of kin with a choice. She can either elect to pay for the procedure at the price that is offered or she can choose not to pay for the surgery, leading to the patient’s premature death. Only by electing not to pay for the surgery (and causing her loved one’s premature death) can downward pressure be exerted in the same way as it was before.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 5, 2017 7:44 PM
Comment #415798
WP, There are several ways to pay for universal health care. Canada uses a sales tax. That will be advantageous for someone like me, who shops very little, but very expensive for my wife.

There is an upper limit on how much will be expended on an individual with a terminal illness. Basically, if the situation is utterly hopeless, no extraordinary steps will be taken.

The various ways to pay for universal health care don’t diminish from my original statement. Every cent spent on health care is a cent that isn’t spent elsewhere. If we tax consumption like Canada, then that will mean consumers will spend less on goods & services, investors will invest less on new ideas and technology, etc… The costs reverberate across the economy and can never be fully itemized.

There are tremendous opportunity costs associated with universal health care and we should be wise and aware of them. The $2T figure I threw out was rough estimate based upon a very favorable scenario: treating 320 million Americans for roughly $6203/yr. Now, there is certainly tremendous benefit that comes from preventing premature deaths, which means the utility gained may exceed the opportunity costs involved, but that’s a cost benefit analysis no one can confidently compute.

There is an upper limit on how much will be expended on an individual with a terminal illness. Basically, if the situation is utterly hopeless, no extraordinary steps will be taken.
Yes. The advantage offered by single-payer systems is that a bureaucrat determines how healthcare is rationed rather than the marketplace. In the latter scenario, how wealthy one is becomes the primary determinant. In the former, a different (hopefully better) set of criteria come into play. Posted by: Warren Porter at May 5, 2017 8:01 PM
Comment #415800
Compare this with emergency heart bypass surgery, typically administered to a patient hours after a heart attack. Firstly, the patient is unconscious and unable to make decisions,

The dilemma proposed above by Warren Porter has a simple solution.

Let’s carry Royal Flush’s scenario of a consumer driven market for health care. The patient needs the ability to “shop around” for the best price, but he’s unconscious, like Warren Porter says.

Whether the man lives or dies he should have the opportunity to shop around to get the best price for his procedure. If he lives he should have the opportunity to do his shopping after the surgery is done and his recovery is complete.

Much like the “We’ll match any deal!” approach to car sales, so should the health care provider be able to provide such a service. The patient should be able to go to any provider for any line item on his invoice. Every item should be up for negotiation. All of the negotiations should be able to take place after the patient has recovered, or his estate should he not survive.

I doubt if any band-aid (pun intended) fixes to the health care problem are going to actually solve the problem. Solutions will be found by thinking outside the box. Tinkering around the edges, being reactionary, and buying votes isn’t going to cure the problem.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 5, 2017 8:50 PM
Comment #415801
Let’s carry Royal Flush’s scenario of a consumer driven market for health care. The patient needs the ability to “shop around” for the best price, but he’s unconscious, like Warren Porter says.

Whether the man lives or dies he should have the opportunity to shop around to get the best price for his procedure. If he lives he should have the opportunity to do his shopping after the surgery is done and his recovery is complete.

It’s not merely about picking from among various competitors. The downward pressure comes from the patient’s option to say, “No, I elect not to undergo that procedure”.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 5, 2017 8:55 PM
Comment #415805

As you said in your example, the patient is unconscious and cannot give his consent or refusal.

The pressure would come from another provider offering the same procedure for less money and the patient’s ability to take advantage of that difference after the fact.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 6, 2017 7:57 AM
Comment #415806

Being unconscious is one of multiple problems. You are ignoring the others.

For the sake of argument, I am going to eliminate the unconsciousness issue for now. It’s only confusing you. Let’s imagine our patient is not the victim of a heart attack, but rather someone who has just been diagnosed with cancer. The patient needs chemotherapy and radiation treatments or they will die.

So, our patient calls up three providers, gets quotes for treatment and selects the cheapest one. End of story? No. Unlike the case of LASIK, where the benefits of being cheaper than one’s competitor bring geometric increases in revenue, treating cancer better than one’s competitor only brings a linear increase in revenue if we assume nobody is going without treatment.

The reason is that by decrease the costs of LASIK, LASIK providers can increase the total number of people buying LASIK surgery. However, if everyone diagnosed with cancer is getting treated, then there is no way to increase the total number of people getting treated. (I am going to exclude fraudulently treating people who don’t need it).

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 6, 2017 8:21 AM
Comment #415831

Warped, How many Veterans have died waiting on care at a VA Hospital? How many have died because Obama care premiums and deductibles were to high? You people on the left complain about the Republican AHCA but it just left the House and still has to clear the hurdle of the Senate where it will most likely come out of there not even remotely looking like the House version. So I suggest you all chill and unwed your panties and wait and see what the Senate brings us.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 7, 2017 1:08 PM
Comment #415833

“How many have died because Obama care premiums and deductibles were to high?”

Actually, Obamacare reduced the percentage of uninsured Americans to the lowest level recorded. Tens of millions obtained coverage thanks to Obamacare. Subsidies meant insurance was within reach for low income people. The removal of lifetime caps meant people no longer had to fear losing their houses in foreclosure due to expensive health care issues; the bankruptcy rate dropped in half thanks to Obamacare. Requiring insurance include Essential Health Benefits meant junk insurance went by the wayside, and medical care began stressing preventative care rather than reacting with treatment. Obamacare saved a LOT of lives.

Having said that, the deductibles and premiums are still too high. They increased MUCH less than they were going up prior to Obamacare, but still… The attacks by the GOP and Trump on Obamacare encourage insurers to drop out of the markets, turning predictions of doom into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Faced with the threat that federal subsidies will be withheld from insurers, who wouldn’t at least think about dropping out?

The US spends twice as much as countries with universal health care, yet it gets a worse outcome- lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality.

There are three ways to fix this: 1) make a public option available on the state health care exchanges, 2) expand Medicare eligibility to 60 and then 55, thus drastically dropping premiums on the private exchanges, or 3) Install universal health care.

About the only positive thing I can say for the AHCA is that is will help us realize we should go with universal health care.

Posted by: phx8 at May 7, 2017 1:51 PM
Comment #415836

Keep on reading those grocery store tabloids phx8. Ask the people in Arizona are dealing with 110% hike in premiums.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at May 7, 2017 2:36 PM
Comment #415837

“Actually, Obamacare reduced the percentage of uninsured Americans to the lowest level recorded. Tens of millions obtained coverage thanks to Obamacare. Subsidies meant insurance was within reach for low income people.”

What a joke phx8. Being forced to purchase coverage or face a fine is hardly something to brag about. Low income people have had Medicaid for decades.

Obamacare is failing as insurance companies are pulling out of the program. Premiums are rising faster than ever for those who must pay without subsidies (phx8 complains about his premiums and deductibles) deductibles have become un-afordable, and many have been forced to seek a different physician.

Phx8 believes adding more to the Medicare program will reduce costs. How so Pal. Medicare is deep in red ink already.

His wild, and unsubstantiated claims regarding “Obamacare saved a LOT of lives” is pure speculation.

I could inform Phx8 of the pitfalls citizens in countries with national health insurance are facing. But, he wouldn’t care. He is determined to have others pay for him…even if it means sacrificing the best and most immediate care.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 7, 2017 2:52 PM
Comment #415838

“… people in Arizona are dealing with 110% hike in premiums.”

Yes, and people in Indiana are seeing their premiums drop by 4%.

I’m not sure about the AHCA- no one is- but the ACA intended for states to serve as little laboratories for democracy. They were supposed to promote competition through exchanges. It worked in some states, but not in others. Personally, a state-by-state solution makes no sense, because no one wants to see any state fail to provide good health care for its citizens. Furthermore, the threats by the Trump administration to withhold the federal subsidies will presumably scare off some insurance companies. (Aetna is separate- they were furious when the Obama administration enforced anti-trust provisions and prevented a merger).

A nationwide program makes a LOT more sense than a state-by-state approach. A larger pool to average costs is obviously better than a smaller one.

RF,
“His wild, and unsubstantiated claims regarding “Obamacare saved a LOT of lives” is pure speculation.”

No. That is fact. That is a matter of statistics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/01/obamas-claim-the-affordable-care-act-was-a-major-reason-in-preventing-50000-patient-deaths/?utm_term=.c6b6f49c1827

As of 2014, about 50,000 lives were saved, as well as $12 billion in costs.

As for the pitfalls of universal health systems in other countries, we have the fantastic advantage of being the last major country in the world to go with universal health care, so we can pick and choose from which ones work the best.


Posted by: phx8 at May 7, 2017 4:38 PM
Comment #415840

From the link provided by phx8 on so-called “statistics” we read…

“Administration officials concede the number of preventable deaths is a bit fuzzy, in that the 50,000 is an estimate of an estimate.”

Well, guess that good enough for Liberal math.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 7, 2017 5:14 PM
Comment #415841

Perhaps phx8, we will have the fantastic advantage of being the “only” nation that doesn’t spend its wealth trying to change climate.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 7, 2017 5:15 PM
Comment #415843

Phx8, Obama care is still going to implode. I have to buy car insurance but at least I have a choice. With Obama care you buy what is mandated by some IDIOT lawyer that thinks he knows what we need. I don’t need to be told what I need I’m old enough to make my own choices, I don’t need my Congress person telling me what I need.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at May 7, 2017 5:33 PM
Comment #415863

The only way to get leftist government health care is to destroy our founding documents, which can only be done by first destroying the idea of the individual.
The absolutely ridiculous rhetoric that personal responsibility now equals ‘radical individualism,’ is the final assault.

Posted by: kctim at May 8, 2017 8:09 AM
Comment #415870

Fake news, phx8. Shame on you.

http://www.in.gov/fssa/hip/2448.htm

Obama is saving lives like he’s saving millions of jobs. He simply smashes his scepter on the desk and points his nose in the air and says “It is Done”.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 8, 2017 10:08 AM
Comment #415888
The only way to get leftist government health care is to destroy our founding documents, which can only be done by first destroying the idea of the individual. The absolutely ridiculous rhetoric that personal responsibility now equals ‘radical individualism,’ is the final assault.

Enough of the sophistry, kctim. I borrowed the label ‘radical individualism’ from Charles Krauthammer. I suppose it is radical because very few Americans do not wish to permit their fellow citizens to die prematurely of treatable diseases. If you want to believe that this mainstream opinion obliterates the founding documents, that is your prerogative.

In any case, why not examine your conception of ‘personal responsibility’ further. Under this ideology, the only way a person can avoid premature death from treatable disease is for him to acquire enough money to pay for the medical technology and personnel that will cure him. If said person doesn’t have the skills necessary to earn a wage sufficient to buy these medical treatments, then he probably dies a premature death. To a bleeding heart, this might seem a bit harsh, but hey, life isn’t fair, right? You or I shouldn’t have to pay for some pauper’s heart surgery. The pauper needs to take action of his accord to increase his salary if he wants to live a long and prosperous life. Am I reading you right?


KAP.

How many Veterans have died waiting on care at a VA Hospital? How many have died because Obama care premiums and deductibles were to high?

Probably more than zero, but this doesn’t tell us anything. I said before, the only way to achieve a laissez faire health care marketplace is to fully remove all the safety nets and to simply let people die when their health conditions become unaffordable. This is the ONLY way to replicate the phenomenon expressed by LASIK and other elective procedures. I don’t know how many people will end up dying if this is the case, but I guarantee that it is far greater than however many may die under PPACA or the Veterans’ health care system.

I’m okay letting other people die if it means my health care becomes cheaper, are you?

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 8, 2017 10:31 PM
Comment #415889

Warped, Are you will to let people die when health care gets so far out of reach that people can’t afford to pay? If so then we can keep Obamacare.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 8, 2017 10:36 PM
Comment #415891

KAP,

Sounds like your are opposed to letting people die in order to keep costs down. So, should I put you down as favoring single payer then?

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 8, 2017 10:44 PM
Comment #415894

Warped, NOPE, I’m for an open and free market. Health Ins. should be like any other Ins. pay for what you want not what some asshole in D. C. says I need.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 8, 2017 11:59 PM
Comment #415904

Warren,

You are passing off the mistaken belief that without government people will be dying in the streets, as if it were fact, but I am the one trying to deceive people? Please, that’s enough of blindly towing the party line.
The use of nonsense such as ‘radical individualism’ is meant only to belittle and eventually dismiss the idea of individualism and replace it with the state.

If you wish to discuss individual liberty, then you must do so honestly and without the fear mongering hyperbole.

First, people were not “dying in the streets” before the ACA. EVERY American had access to health care in one form or another. Restoring some of our individual liberty by repealing the ACA will not lead to people having no choice but to die in the streets.

Second, if you wish to ‘read me right,’ you must understand that in a truly free society, the individual liberty of all trumps the desires of one. Individuals have rights, governments have limits. Governments job is not to protect us from ourselves, but only to protect us from each other and from foreign entities.
If a person believes desires trump individual liberty, liberty becomes nothing more than a privilege granted by and controlled at the whim of government.

Yes, individual liberty comes with great responsibility, but that responsibility does not end with ones own self, as the left would have us believe. IF the left practiced what they preached, instead of spending their time and money to complain about how others spend their time and money, your “pauper” would have many more options.

No, life isn’t always fair. No, you and I should not be forced to pay for somebody else’s way through life.
Liberty is far more important than iPhones, data, restaurants and lattes.

Posted by: kctim at May 9, 2017 11:09 AM
Comment #415906

Doc my kid has a problem and we have chosen you and three others to submit a bid to perform a certain scope of work on my kid. The bids are due in 5 days as my kid seems quite sick. I will evaluate your bid along with other bids and get back to you if you are low bid.

Or perhaps this free and open market scenario works for conservatives…

Doc it says here you charge $100 to diagnose my kids illness. I can only pay you $50.00 and two dozen ears of corn. Can we schedule an appointment based upon my offer?

Or lets include the middleman and see if the free and open market is the solution. Here goes…

Insurance company with my income I can afford to pay $200 a month for insurance coverage for my family. I would like to have complete coverage except a co pay of $20.00 per office visit. IF that is to low what is the least you can do on the monthly payments. Are you willing to exchange some mechanic services on an employees vehicle in lieu of additional monthly charges?


I don’t know I’m just not seeing it as workable in this day and age. IMHO free and open market also means that not only is the Doctor, the Insurance Company, the Lab, the Hospital, the Pharmacy and the Pharmaceutical Companies performing their particular services for profit they are all going for maximum profit for their shareholders. Competition hasn’t helped to bring costs down with this system. It wasn’t that long ago that health care was more of a not for profit endeavor.

IMHO some things work well with the market and some don’t. health care is one of those that doesn’t work based upon a capitalistic free market system. Consumer goods and such it works well. Time for the US to get with the program and come up with a national health care plan like the rest of the industrialized world. Free up all those companies providing health insurance to their employees to compete in the marketplace. Time to drop the political ideology that says everything needs to be market based.

Unfortunately Trumpcare as it stands isn’t the answer. This fraud of a bill is intended to cut taxes for the wealthy and dismantle medicare and medicaid. Can a repub led Senate do any better? Time will tell. When people like Keeley believe “….that before Obamacare babies were not dying across the country”? I wonder if Keeley realizes that the parents were going bankrupt trying to pay the hospital bills before Obamacare. Is that what we want to return to?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 9, 2017 11:31 AM
Comment #415916

Suppose j2t2 has used illegal drugs all his life and practiced unsafe s*x with every willing partner. He is too lazy to work so he robs homes and convenience stores.

It’s time to pay for his lifestyle as j2t2 has contracted a venereal disease, developed a life-threatening opium addiction and was shot three times during his last robbery.

Question: Will his Pal phx8 pay for his medical care?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 9, 2017 3:36 PM
Comment #415918

Every single Liberal Pal has declared that we must follow other developed nations and adopt National Health Care. They imply that the United States is backward in its thinking and must be brought screaming and kicking into the modern world.

None of these same Liberal Pals are against “birthright citizenship” (right of the soil) as practiced here in the United States but not in those same developed nations they are so proud of and wish to emulate.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 9, 2017 3:46 PM
Comment #415926
You are passing off the mistaken belief that without government people will be dying in the streets, as if it were fact, but I am the one trying to deceive people? Please, that’s enough of blindly towing the party line.

It’s not a mistaken belief, but rather tautology. By definition, a laissez faire system with zero government involvement requires that some people who make poor life decisions die prematurely of treatable disease. If people aren’t dying, it isn’t a free market.

First, people were not “dying in the streets” before the ACA. EVERY American had access to health care in one form or another.
Before the ACA, we didn’t have a free market. We had a government mandate that required hospitals to provide lifesaving care to people who needed. This government mandate raised the cost of healthcare for everyone else. I thought you agreed with me that EMTALA ought to be repealed?
No, life isn’t always fair. No, you and I should not be forced to pay for somebody else’s way through life.

So, we agree that neither you nor I should pay for lifesaving treatment for a pauper. Instead, that pauper should die if he or she is unable to find the necessary funds on his or her own or through voluntary charity.

Governments job is not to protect us from ourselves, but only to protect us from each other and from foreign entities.
Why don’t you think protection from each other or from foreign entities a matter of “personal responsibility”? Why rob Peter to pay for Paul’s military protection? Shouldn’t Paul pay for his own military protection? Posted by: Warren Porter at May 9, 2017 5:14 PM
Comment #415927
Question: Will his Pal phx8 pay for his medical care?

Not only will phx8 pay but the rest of society will pay for the abuse of liberty I have chosen as a lifestyle. You see Royal the consequences of these actions results in jail and or prison time. But on a positive note I do keep the police gainfully employed as well as prison staff, not to mention lawyers judges and bondsmen in your scenario. Such contributions may not result in fortune for myself but it does keep the wheels of the economy rolling.

Of course that is kinda like many many others who work hard at two or three jobs trying to keep food on the table these days, they too help keep the wheels of the economy turning, isn’t that plus their own contributions to medicare and OASDI enough to earn some respect from you? Or is it a winner take all society that earns your respect?

Every single Liberal Pal has declared that we must follow other developed nations and adopt National Health Care.

You seemed surprised that Americans would use ideas from other countries Royal. I think if you look around it is more commonplace than you might realize.

What we are saying, at least in my case, is lets do what works. We can see many different examples from other countries with even more liberty">https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017”>liberty than our country..

None of these same Liberal Pals are against “birthright citizenship” (right of the soil) as practiced here in the United States but not in those same developed nations they are so proud of and wish to emulate.

Certainly Royal you understand this silly argument is beneath you, don’t you? Are you really suggesting that because we suggest picking a healthcare system from one of the many other industrialized nations that serve more at lower costs means we have to do everything the same as them? It must be desperation on your part to go to this all or nothing argument.

I think you are starting to see the whole repeal and replace drama has left us in a quandary, especially those that will need to come to terms with the all or nothing ideology that has caused them to believe that because making and selling cars works in a free market then everything must work in a free market including healthcare. All or nothing lacks logic and reason, my friend.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 9, 2017 5:24 PM
Comment #415928

I approve of prison health care for j2t2.

Birthright citizenship is indefensible in the United States.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 9, 2017 5:37 PM
Comment #415931

Oops the link should be liberty

It seems some of us here claim the loss of liberty and or freedom they say is associated with any government involvement in healthcare. Yet when the list of countries with ">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care”> universal health care or as our conservative friends say socialized medicine is compared with the Freedom House report 25 of the 30 countries with a higher Freedom score than America have universal health care. Go figure huh! Kinda blows the myth out of the water IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 9, 2017 6:22 PM
Comment #415932

and the link should be universal health care

Posted by: j2t2 at May 9, 2017 6:25 PM
Comment #415956

“It’s not a mistaken belief, but rather tautology.”

It is nothing more than hyperbole, used to do nothing more than scare up support.

“I thought you agreed with me that EMTALA ought to be repealed?”

Oh, I do, but as we have discussed before, it won’t be. To say the abuse of that mandate means we might as well have an individual mandate is like saying you shouldn’t fight the cancer you have been diagnosed with.

“Why don’t you think protection from each other or from foreign entities a matter of “personal responsibility”?”

I actually do think self defense is the responsibility of the individual, and I also believe that all Americans should always be at the ready to defend our nation.
Aside from that though, due process and raising armies are in the Constitution. The fulfillment of desires and warm fuzzy feelings, is not.

Whether or not the common good is on par with the common defense, is always an interesting debate, Warren. But with ‘common good’ being so open to interpretation, and the fact that the founders believed defense to be so important that they included it, I don’t think it’s valid.

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2017 8:37 AM
Comment #415963

Our little Buddy Warren writes his leftist rants from the cozy and safe environment of Eastern Elite Liberalism.

I suggest he study the “Great Generation” of Americans that survived the Great Depression, Dust Bowl, and World War. Every single American did their part.

What has Warren accomplished?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 3:36 PM
Comment #416059
It is nothing more than hyperbole, used to do nothing more than scare up support.

You say it is hyperbole, but offer NOTHING to support your contention. How can you claim to support individual liberty if you oppose letting people die in the streets? If people are not permitted to make poor decisions that lead to their premature death due to treatable diseases, then you are not giving them absolute liberty to live their own lives as they see fit.

To say the abuse of that mandate means we might as well have an individual mandate is like saying you shouldn’t fight the cancer you have been diagnosed with.
The analogy makes no sense. Treating cancer is done in the hopes of removing 100% of the cancerous cells. If absolute individual liberty isn’t your goal, then the policy advocacy comes across as a cynical ploy to satisfy other goals.
Whether or not the common good is on par with the common defense, is always an interesting debate, Warren. But with ‘common good’ being so open to interpretation, and the fact that the founders believed defense to be so important that they included it, I don’t think it’s valid.

The Founders also thought general welfare to be important. So important, they included it in the same clauses that common defense is mentioned in Article I Section 8 and preamble. But let’s put aside the question of the Constitution’s text for now and ask why the Founders may have believed that providing for the common defense required different treatment than providing other basic goods and services.

RF,
I am flattered by your curiousity about my life, but I don’t think such a discussion adds much to this conversation. Maybe another time.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 11, 2017 6:35 PM
Comment #416078

Warren,

People were not dying in the streets before the ACA was enacted, nor have they been throughout its failure. How is that ‘nothing?’

My unwillingness to accept the ‘dying in the streets’ hyperbole does not mean I oppose people living with the results of the choices they make. That’s no different than saying you hate women if you don’t support abortion, and it’s ridiculous.

“Treating cancer is done in the hopes of removing 100% of the cancerous cells.”

Yes, that is the goal. But often all you can do is fight its spreading and hope for some form of remission.
Government mandates are the same way.

As far as why the founders made common defense a specific enumerated power of the federal government and placed the onus of general welfare on State governments, that can be chalked up to their fear of the unchecked centralized power we have today.

Posted by: kctim at May 12, 2017 10:54 AM
Comment #416084
People were not dying in the streets before the ACA was enacted, nor have they been throughout its failure. How is that ‘nothing?’

EMTALA has been the law of the land throughout the entire time period you cite. There is no way to stop people from dying in the streets without government intervention such as EMTALA. Now I don’t have a problem letting people die, but apparently you do, which makes your suggestion that you support repealing EMTALA quite dubious.

My unwillingness to accept the ‘dying in the streets’ hyperbole does not mean I oppose people living with the results of the choices they make. That’s no different than saying you hate women if you don’t support abortion, and it’s ridiculous

Are you denying that a person’s decisions can lead to a circumstance where they need urgent medical care while on the streets and they are without the funds to possibly pay for it?

As far as why the founders made common defense a specific enumerated power of the federal government and placed the onus of general welfare on State governments, that can be chalked up to their fear of the unchecked centralized power we have today.
Firstly, providing for the general welfare is a specific enumerated power of the Congress specified in Article I Section VIII: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…” (emphasis mine)

Secondly, you completely dodge the question I asked. You said that fear of an unchecked centralized power meant that providing for the general Welfare should not be a Federal issue. However, that tells me nothing about why general Welfare and common defence are treated differently. Why doesn’t the same fear of unchecked centralized power make the founders to make defense against foreign armies an individual’s personal responsibility.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 12, 2017 1:27 PM
Comment #416122

Facts aren’t debatable. Compared to the US system, the Canadian system has lower costs, more services, universal access to health care without financial barriers, and superior health status. Canadians and Germans have longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates than do US residents.

All of the arguments stating that universal healthcare will lead to less choice and higher prices are simply not based in fact or historical data. If you want to rebut, look at information on the WHO (World Health Organization) website. They are the ONLY organization that tracks costs and health outcomes. ANY argument regarding healthcare either relies on their data or is fraudulent.

You know, cheaper, better healthcare should really have bi-partisan support. I do not know how we got here.

Posted by: Max at May 12, 2017 7:40 PM
Comment #417418

Thanks for posting that here, it is very useful!


Escortlondon

Posted by: nortmab at June 17, 2017 5:54 AM
Post a comment