Why do the Repuclicans have such a hate on for universal healthcare in America?

[StanJ]

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/03/house-republicans-pass-bill-health-care-19-million-americans.html

 

[7angels]

it is one step closer to a socialist government. why should we be made to get it anyways? is not the isa a country of freedom of choice? we are losing more and more freedoms we once enjoyed. if the healthcare was an option to choose from then great but to say we have to do it is wrong.

God bless

 

[StanJ]

Really? Do you have a choice to drive without a licence, or pay taxes or obey the speed limits or even own a gun without a licence?
IMO, all citizens should have their health protected. That is one thing a government should do, IF all men are equal.
FYI, the church is socialist in nature so I really don't understand the analogy....we're not talking about communism, we're talking about the healthcare of ALL Americans, regardless as to whether they can afford it or not. A tax based system ensure that all contribute to it, not just those who can afford it.

 

[River Jordan]

It's called identity politics. Remember, the main mechanism of the ACA--the individual mandate--was a conservative idea developed by the Heritage Foundation, offered as an alternative to "Hillary Care" by then-Speaker Newt G., and put into action by GOP Governor Romney. But once Obama proposed it and it became associated with him, the GOP turned course and started calling it all sorts of terrible things.

What was the difference? Nothing, except who was behind it. Identity politics.

 

[aspen]

Because the Republican Party represents the rich. They want low wages, no healthcare, and big business without regulation. The Republicans have the advantage too, because all they have to do to get elected is to point to their own unwillingness to do their job and claim that government doesn't work. It would be like me going to work and not doing my job and blaming the very system that I work for and then getting a raise. Unfortunately after Clinton signed NAFTA, the Democratic's joined the Republicans. Clinton was also responsible for the rise of Pharmaceuticals - he allowed them to advertise on TV and ever since we have had a terrible prescription drug addiction problem and drug prices have increased 1000 percent. And pharmaceutical companies are only interested in creating new forms of Viagra and stomach acid pills. Prilosec and Nexium are the same medication - but because Nexium had one tiny tweek to it, the maker got to get a new patent on it. The free market is a joke when it is applied to essentials like heating, healthcare etc. it is merely another way for the rich to get richer. Meanwhile, I will never pay off my school loans on my current salary. I will never own a home. I am educated and hard working, but that is not enough in America today.

Americans have also traded essentials like healthcare for entertainment. We walk around without health insurance, but we all have big screen tvs and Xbox. Bread and circuses.

Yep identity politics is way people get elected. In the 1800s it was prohibition - today it is abortion and 'big government' - whatever that means. If you lived in 1800s American, you would either be a 'wet' or a 'dry' and you voted on that issue alone. It was only during the twenties that people were dumb enough to actually pass a law.......mighty big waste of a wedge issue. I am sure the House and Senate lost a lot of career politicians when Prohibition passed

 

[rockytopva]

Repuclicans??? Are not they from the planet Repuplica???

 

[lforrest]

In concept I would like UH, but in practicality it is a bureaucratic nightmare.

1. Potential loss of personal liberty. Death panels, & restrictions on unhealthy practices.

2. General government inefficiency due to a lack of economic structure. Currently you or your company can shop around for cheaper insurance.

3. Payment caps for procedures; such as we have with insurance now. Except now a good doctor can make it without being tied to an insurance Co. This would destroy the patient DR economy. It would be bad for the physicians, and eventually for everyone else when it becomes hard to find a DR with an opening.

4. Lower quality of care. If you had a day in court would you feel safer with a public defender or a lawyer you hired.

 

[River Jordan]

You need to look at the data. Single payer systems are far superior to our for-profit system in the US in just about every metric you care to mention. Basically in the US, we pay far more than other developed countries and get far worse care. And death panels? Really? That was the "Lie of the Year" in 2009.

 

[StanJ]

In concept I would like UH, but in practicality it is a bureaucratic nightmare.

1. Potential loss of personal liberty. Death panels, & restrictions on unhealthy practices.

2. General government inefficiency due to a lack of economic structure. Currently you or your company can shop around for cheaper insurance.

3. Payment caps for procedures; such as we have with insurance now. Except now a good doctor can make it without being tied to an insurance Co. This would destroy the patient DR economy. It would be bad for the physicians, and eventually for everyone else when it becomes hard to find a DR with an opening.

4. Lower quality of care. If you had a day in court would you feel safer with a public defender or a lawyer you hired.

IMO, bureaucracy is the bane of all governments.

1. How do you arrive at these conclusions? Please qualify, and what the heck is a death panel?

2. A tax based system means the government pays the hospital bills, and sets the prices. No insurance company could compete, as they are obliged to make money.

3. Setting fair market rates doesn't impede the professional. Some doctors may get into it for the money but mostly they do it as a calling. I have NEVER had a problem finding a GP, and specialists always abound. I have a regular Ophthalmologist and Endocrinologist, along with my GP.

4. You believe at present you don't have some doctors that are better than others? That would be pretty naïve and the comparison to public defenders is not applicable on so many levels and indicates you don't understand that system. Public defenders ARE fully qualified and in many cases successful lawyers.

 

[lforrest]

You need to look at the data. Single payer systems are far superior to our for-profit system in the US in just about every metric you care to mention. Basically in the US, we pay far more than other developed countries and get far worse care. And death panels? Really? That was the "Lie of the Year" in 2009.

All that data proves is doctors make more in the US, and insurance companies are making a killing. I'm not a fan of for profit insurance either, as their profits depend on not paying out for care.

Death panels are a real possibility, the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence withholds payment for treatments where it is deemed too costly for the benefit to the patient. Many of us have been there with pets, do you spend thousands in vet bills for an old animal that you know will die soon anyways?

IMO, bureaucracy is the bane of all governments.

1. How do you arrive at these conclusions? Please qualify, and what the heck is a death panel?

2. A tax based system means the government pays the hospital bills, and sets the prices. No insurance company could compete, as they are obliged to make money.

3. Setting fair market rates doesn't impede the professional. Some doctors may get into it for the money but mostly they do it as a calling. I have NEVER had a problem finding a GP, and specialists always abound. I have a regular Ophthalmologist and Endocrinologist, along with my GP.

4. You believe at present you don't have some doctors that are better than others? That would be pretty naïve and the comparison to public defenders is not applicable on so many levels and indicates you don't understand that system. Public defenders ARE fully qualified and in many cases successful lawyers.

1. A death panel is a politically loaded word for a group of people that prescribe the worth of a person to decide if it is worth spending money on them. Like my example with the old pet. While this is an extreme case, it is a possibility in a system with limited resources. The same motivation would be used to promote laws that make the population healthier. Like the former ban on large Sodas in NY.

2. If there is no competition they would beat out the insurance companies at first, but when they become the single payer they would only have government oversight to limit their expenditures.

3. Around here it is common for the older more experienced doctors to not participate in an HMO, and to have their schedule booked months in advance. Specialists are also booked far in advance in many cases.

4. There obviously are varying degrees of skill among doctors, and lawyers. The comparison is applicable when we are talking about doctors who would be working for the Gov. And just because someone is qualified doesn't mean they are good at their job.

 

[[email protected]]

Republicans hate universal health care? First of all it isn't universal. There are lots of cracks in the system and many people fall through them and get nothing.

I do not believe you will see the health care system repealed. It is now an established bureaucracy and from now on all we'll hear is chatter about "fixing" it. The law will not be repealed. For all their supposed hate of socialism, the Republicans have never, repeat NEVER been successful at repealing a single one.

The health care system as it exists now is a very lucrative insurance money maker, and Republicans are much in favor of such things.

BTW, I'm a Libertarian so I think both the Reps and the Dems are nothing but a two headed snake.

"Giving authority to congress is like watching a baby play with a hammer."
- Mark Twain

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft....

 

[StanJ]

1. A death panel is a politically loaded word for a group of people that prescribe the worth of a person to decide if it is worth spending money on them. Like my example with the old pet. While this is an extreme case, it is a possibility in a system with limited resources. The same motivation would be used to promote laws that make the population healthier. Like the former ban on large Sodas in NY.

2. If there is no competition they would beat out the insurance companies at first, but when they become the single payer they would only have government oversight to limit their expenditures.

3. Around here it is common for the older more experienced doctors to not participate in an HMO, and to have their schedule booked months in advance. Specialists are also booked far in advance in many cases.

4. There obviously are varying degrees of skill among doctors, and lawyers. The comparison is applicable when we are talking about doctors who would be working for the Gov. And just because someone is qualified doesn't mean they are good at their job.

1. Never heard of this and they sure don't exist in Canada where we have been on UH for decades. The government spends what they have to and of course budgets exist because that's how governments run, but never to the detriment of patients. Some bans are common sense, just like the seat belt laws. If the government has to pay the consequence of people's lifestyles then they have the right to legislate certain laws.

2. Yeh it's called a general vote. No country with UH has a problem with it, only those that fear it for whatever nebulous reasons.

3. Well there lies the problem as I perceive it. HMO's are businesses run FOR profit. Government isn't. I do have to book my specialist, but as in any case if any emergency arises, such as my eye rupturing and bleeding, my ophthalmologist got me in the next day and did laser surgery on it. When I had two stents put in my left arterial descending artery, it happened the day of my heart attack. My endo does take a couple of weeks to get in but then again not much is that urgent with endos.

4. Yes there are, but just because someone is paid with tax dollars doesn't mean they are NOT good at their job. There are standards that all doctors have to meet. You assume being paid by the government equates to ineptitude. Maybe in the case of politicians that could be the case, and in the case of bureaucrats, the peter principle is always in effect, but I don't accept that is the case for professionals of any type. FYI, specialists do get paid more than GP's because they are specialists, just like in your country.

Republicans hate universal health care? First of all it isn't universal. There are lots of cracks in the system and many people fall through them and get nothing.

I do not believe you will see the health care system repealed. It is now an established bureaucracy and from now on all we'll hear is chatter about "fixing" it. The law will not be repealed. For all their supposed hate of socialism, the Republicans have never, repeat NEVER been successful at repealing a single one.

The health care system as it exists now is a very lucrative insurance money maker, and Republicans are much in favor of such things.

Yes they do, and you don't have it yet in the states. Obamacare was getting there but the Republicans fought it at every turn, and as they have the majority in both the house and senate, it is likely they will repeal it.
All man-made systems have flaws, but, "you don't throw out the baby with the bath water."

All the more reason for NOT letting it go unchecked by money grubbing financial institutions in it for profit.
Do I have to remind you of what happened there in 05-08?

 

[pom2014]

The reason why they are against it?

They are being funded by insurers. Plain and simple.

It's just greed.

Any whom block a system to improve the health of a nation, and thereby weaken the people that will be called upon to defend that nation, is a traitor.

 

[HammerStone]

I kinda view the American insurance system as a tale of two evils. Big business and big government are both machines that will crush people if enabled.

StanJ, to simply answer your original query, I would point out the VA. That's a government run healthcare system that is overburdened yet it has the second largest budget of any department, so much so that there has been widespread cooking the books which directly resulted in patient deaths as appointments were cancelled to meet quotas. There are also honest questions of healthcare quality, so much so that I know many veterans who opt to go to private doctors. Wait times are not good and the VA itself was using a 30+ year old database ('76 Unix) even through the first part of the 2000s.

Also, Canada, Great Britain, etc. all have UH, but all of these countries are a fraction of the size of the US (Canada is literally about 1/10, GB about 1/5 and even Germany is not much larger). All of these countries even have relatively homogenous populations as well, making care much simpler. In the US, you're dealing with anywhere from 5x to 10x the population size, and you're dealing with illegal immigration population perhaps even as much as half the size (or more) of Canada.

This is a far larger system that is currently run anywhere. Many of the countries you mention with UH do have excellent services in some arenas, but so does the US.

 

[StanJ]

I kinda view the American insurance system as a tale of two evils. Big business and big government are both machines that will crush people if enabled.

StanJ, to simply answer your original query, I would point out the VA. That's a government run healthcare system that is overburdened yet it has the second largest budget of any department, so much so that there has been widespread cooking the books which directly resulted in patient deaths as appointments were cancelled to meet quotas. There are also honest questions of healthcare quality, so much so that I know many veterans who opt to go to private doctors. Wait times are not good and the VA itself was using a 30+ year old database ('76 Unix) even through the first part of the 2000s.

Also, Canada, Great Britain, etc. all have UH, but all of these countries are a fraction of the size of the US (Canada is literally about 1/10, GB about 1/5 and even Germany is not much larger). All of these countries even have relatively homogenous populations as well, making care much simpler. In the US, you're dealing with anywhere from 5x to 10x the population size, and you're dealing with illegal immigration population perhaps even as much as half the size (or more) of Canada.

This is a far larger system that is currently run anywhere. Many of the countries you mention with UH do have excellent services in some arenas, but so does the US.

Although this may be I don't look at it that way.

There is no doubt UH costs, so does taxation, but it's the only way top make it "universal".
Size really is not an issue here, it's organization and a willingness to make it work. In Canada we have big problems with it because of the fact that we continue to elect conservative governments who always manage to cutback or clawback healthcare spending. We have the same problem with our veterans as you do and maybe worse, as we don't have a VA.

Size is immaterial. The United Kingdom is #18 on the W.H.O. list of best Healthcare Systems. Canada is #30 and the U.S. is #37.

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

The fact is that Japan is #10 in both Health care systems and population, so doing it properly CAN be done, it just has to be committed to. The U.S. is used to working with it's population size, so the infrastructure is there, it just needs to be prioritized and streamlined, not constantly interfered with.
An interesting fact is that those with the higher healthcare systems are also higher in all other categories like best places to live and best economies.

Actually China IS bigger but also is way down on the chart of health care systems at #144, but if you look at the stats, it because their urban population is 54% and the U.S. is 83%.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

The issue is not excellency, but availability of UH. To be able to afford good health care is NOT the same as having universal health care. The laudable goal is to have BOTH good and universal. France is a very good example and they have MANY others problems as you should well know.

 

[River Jordan]

All that data proves is doctors make more in the US, and insurance companies are making a killing.

It shows that Americans pay about double what other developed countries pay, and get worse care despite the extra expense. Doctors' pay and insurance profits are definitely a factor in that.

I'm not a fan of for profit insurance either, as their profits depend on not paying out for care.

It's a pretty fundamental issue....do we want our health care system to be run primarily for profit, or do we want it run primarily for the public good?

Death panels are a real possibility, the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence withholds payment for treatments where it is deemed too costly for the benefit to the patient. Many of us have been there with pets, do you spend thousands in vet bills for an old animal that you know will die soon anyways?

Well if that's what you call "death panels", then we have that now. They're called insurance companies.

 

[ATP]

Well let's see, 18 trillion dollars in debt. Hmm.... <_<

Let's keep spending money, sure that works.

 

[Dan57]

"Universal" just means to me that I not only continue to pay for my own healthcare, but I also pay for the bum across the street.

 

[heretoeternity]

Government healthcare sounds good, but ultimately becomes corrupted like everything else...it's called abuse of the system...people get bored..oh make an appointment with the doctor, and get complete check up..meanwhile someone who needs a checkup and is working, has to wait weeks, months sometimes to get an appointment for an ailment..the clinics have become more like a old folks club, day care for children, aboriginal drop in centre or whatever..Cost to the taxpayer is horrendous...the other thing is universal health care is abused financially by the abortionists who commit their horrendous crimes on humanity, the abortion of babies at tax payer expense, even though it is an "elective" procedure....The list goes on and on and on...so think twice for adopting universal healthcare

 

[River Jordan]

Well let's see, 18 trillion dollars in debt. Hmm.... <_<

Let's keep spending money, sure that works.

Well that's kinda the point. We (the US) were spending ridiculous amounts of money on health care....way more than other developed countries...and we were getting worse care for it. So obviously something had to change, because the previous system just wasn't working and was spiraling out of control. The ACA is one attempt at fixing that. It's reduced the rate at which health care spending is increasing, but it's still increasing. IMO, it's merely a step along the inevitable path to a single-payer system.

"Universal" just means to me that I not only continue to pay for my own healthcare, but I also pay for the bum across the street.

You were already paying for "the bum across the street" (nice Christian attitude btw). Whenever he went to the ER for care and didn't pay, those costs were passed on to you in both higher medical fees and insurance premiums. Not only that, but his costs were already higher because he couldn't afford insurance, which meant he never got routine preventative care, which meant by the time he went to the ER his problems were worse than they should have been, which raises costs.

It's far cheaper if we just cover everyone up front. The only other alternative is to have a system where if you can't pay, you don't get care, and I can't imagine anyone supporting that.

Government healthcare sounds good

The data is very clear that single-payer systems are far superior to for-profit systems in both costs and care.

but ultimately becomes corrupted like everything else...it's called abuse of the system...people get bored..oh make an appointment with the doctor, and get complete check up..meanwhile someone who needs a checkup and is working, has to wait weeks, months sometimes to get an appointment for an ailment..the clinics have become more like a old folks club, day care for children, aboriginal drop in centre or whatever..Cost to the taxpayer is horrendous.

So we shouldn't have a health care system because people get bored and hang out in doctor's offices? Um..... :blink:

..the other thing is universal health care is abused financially by the abortionists who commit their horrendous crimes on humanity, the abortion of babies at tax payer expense, even though it is an "elective" procedure....

The abortion question is a legitimate issue, but I can't deny some kid treatment for her disease because I'm worried someone else might get an abortion. More than likely that person will get their abortion either way, so withholding care from the kid just seems spiteful to me.