Trumpcare will throw people off healthcare?

[ClimateSanity]

In a thread about a Nebraska politician wishing for the assasination of Steve Scalise before it actually happened, it was pointed out that Scalise didn't care if people were thrown out healthcare as if this was a justification for murder.

Obamacare is not a single payer health system but it is closer to it than the one that the house passed a few short months ago.

If something closer to a single payer system is supposedly more humane than the house passed system, it follows that a single payer system itself is surely more humane than health care as it has existed in this country.

Let's compare the single payer system in the UK to the system in the US according to health outcomes.

"US beats the UK in lives saved by healthcare" is an article addressing that very issue written by Ryan Bourne of the Federation for Economic Freedom.

It can be found here:

https://fee.org/articles/us-beats-uk-in-lives-saved-by-health-care/

A portion of the article here:

Last night’s CNN duel between Senators Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz on the future of Obamacare was pretty illuminating for a recent arrival to the United States, with Senator Sanders’ playbook all-too-familiar to those of us from the UK.

Sanders wants a single-payer socialized healthcare system in the United States, just as we have in Britain. Any objection to that is met with the claim that you are “leaving people to die.” The only alternatives on offer, you would think, are the U.S. system as it exists now, or the UK system.

Sanders did not once acknowledge that the UK structure, which is free at the point of use, inevitably means rationed care, with a lack of pre-screening. He also failed to acknowledge that lower health spending levels (indeed, even*public*spending on health is lower in the UK than the United States now) are*not the same as efficiency—which is about outputs per input.

 

[drbrumley]

From Ron Paul.....100% agree

Like their colleagues in the House, the Senate Republican leadership has squandered an opportunity to repeal Obamacare and replace it with true free-market health care. Instead, they have unveiled a bill that retains Obamacare's core mandates.

It should be rejected.

 

[ClimateSanity]

From Ron Paul.....100% agree

Like their colleagues in the House, the Senate Republican leadership has squandered an opportunity to repeal Obamacare and replace it with true free-market health care. Instead, they have unveiled a bill that retains Obamacare's core mandates.

It should be rejected.

According to the logic shown by TOLs leftists, Ron Paul's idea of healthcare will kill even more people.

 

[drbrumley]

According to the logic shown by TOLs leftists, Ron Paul's idea of healthcare will kill even more people.

Of course they would be wrong

 

[drbrumley]

If the Senate health care bill becomes law, insurance companies will go from sellers of insurance to mere payers of medical bills. The only people who would buy policies would be the sick who have high medical bills that need paying. But with no healthy people buying policies, premiums would soar. Eventually it would be cheaper for sick people to pay their medical bills themselves, if they can actually afford to do so, rather than hiring an expensive third party that would simply add its own markup. The only way to keep a lid on premiums would be for massive, and ever increasing taxpayer subsidies to keep insurance companies operating in the black. Passage of this bill would ultimate guarantee the end of private health insurance and lead directly to a single payer, socialized medical system. If that is what Republicans want they should just come out and say so. Otherwise repeal Obamacare outright, and replace it with the free market. To do this the government must also repeal a lot of other legislation that undermines the free market, and remove all tax provided incentives for employer provided health insurance. That could be part of comprehensive tax reform that combines fewer deductions with lower rates. That allows Congress to kill two birds with one stone.

From Peter Schiff

:up:

 

[ClimateSanity]

If the Senate health care bill becomes law, insurance companies will go from sellers of insurance to mere payers of medical bills. The only people who would buy policies would be the sick who have high medical bills that need paying. But with no healthy people buying policies, premiums would soar. Eventually it would be cheaper for sick people to pay their medical bills themselves, if they can actually afford to do so, rather than hiring an expensive third party that would simply add its own markup. The only way to keep a lid on premiums would be for massive, and ever increasing taxpayer subsidies to keep insurance companies operating in the black. Passage of this bill would ultimate guarantee the end of private health insurance and lead directly to a single payer, socialized medical system. If that is what Republicans want they should just come out and say so. Otherwise repeal Obamacare outright, and replace it with the free market. To do this the government must also repeal a lot of other legislation that undermines the free market, and remove all tax provided incentives for employer provided health insurance. That could be part of comprehensive tax reform that combines fewer deductions with lower rates. That allows Congress to kill two birds with one stone.

From Peter Schiff

:up:

Peter Schiff wrote that?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Sorry. I got him confused with the scoundrel congressman Adam Schiff

 

[jeffblue101]

From Ron Paul.....100% agree

Like their colleagues in the House, the Senate Republican leadership has squandered an opportunity to repeal Obamacare and replace it with true free-market health care. Instead, they have unveiled a bill that retains Obamacare's core mandates.

It should be rejected.

I understand your frustration but you are blaming the wrong thing, its the filibuster that holds rebulicans to a bill that must pass the reconciliation process. so far Ron Paul has not suggested an alternative process Republicans can use to pass a comprehensive bill through.

 

[drbrumley]

I understand your frustration but you are blaming the wrong thing, its the filibuster that holds rebulicans to a bill that must pass the reconciliation process. so far Ron Paul has not suggested an alternative process Republicans can use to pass a comprehensive bill through.

I am not sure I am understanding what your saying....so please forgive me in asking more

How does a filibuster hold Republicans to a bill they wrote?

 

[drbrumley]

Sorry. I got him confused with the scoundrel congressman Adam Schiff

Not related!!! LOL!!!

 

[patrick jane]

From Ron Paul.....100% agree

Like their colleagues in the House, the Senate Republican leadership has squandered an opportunity to repeal Obamacare and replace it with true free-market health care. Instead, they have unveiled a bill that retains Obamacare's core mandates.

It should be rejected.

Yes, reject everything, nothing is good enough :thumb:

 

[drbrumley]

Yes, reject everything, nothing is good enough :thumb:

Yes, accept what they give you, you like scraps...

 

[drbrumley]

Yes, reject everything, nothing is good enough :thumb:

So if this bill passes, we keep ObamaCare's core mandates, meaning the core of ObamaCare is still intact....

Do you even think before you type, or are so eager to protect Trump at all costs...

 

[jgarden]

The best comparison for healthcare would be between Canada and the US - which share 5,525 miles of common border.

Canada adopted a universal system in the late 1960's, after Saskatchewan demonstrated that it could be successful introduced into a rural, North American setting.

Life expectancy, a common measure for the success of any healthcare system, was approximately the same for both countries and Canadians in the late 1960's, but the gap favouring Canadians spread to almost 3 years with its introduction of universal medical care!

Whatever its difficulties, most Canadian are just thankful that they live north of the border when it comes to healthcare!

 

[drbrumley]

The best comparison would be Canada and the US which share 5,525 miles of border.

Canada adopted a universal system in the late 1960's, after Saskatchewan demonstrated that it could be successful introduced into a rural, North American setting.

Life expectancy, a common measure for the success of a healthcare system, was approximately the same for Americans and Canadians in the late 1960's, but the gap increased to almost 3 years with the introduction of universal medical care!

Whatever its difficulties, most Canadian are just thankful that they live north of the border when it comes to healthcare!

And they can keep their junk of a program...

 

[drbrumley]

The best comparison for healthcare would be between Canada and the US - which share 5,525 miles of common border.

Canada adopted a universal system in the late 1960's, after Saskatchewan demonstrated that it could be successful introduced into a rural, North American setting.

Life expectancy, a common measure for the success of any healthcare system, was approximately the same for both countries and Canadians in the late 1960's, but the gap favouring Canadians spread to almost 3 years with its introduction of universal medical care!

Whatever its difficulties, most Canadian are just thankful that they live north of the border when it comes to healthcare!

Canadian Nurse Fined $26,000 For Exposing Poor Health Care in Canada
Dale Steinreich

Found guilty of “professional misconduct” for a Facebook post criticizing*the sub-standard care her grandfather received at a long-term care facility in Macklin, Saskatchewan.
Canadian nurses, students, and professors have started a GoFundMe page.

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/...ng-about-grandfathers-health-care-on-facebook

 

[jeffblue101]

I am not sure I am understanding what your saying....so please forgive me in asking more

How does a filibuster hold Republicans to a bill they wrote?

the reconciliation process has strict rules that govern bills that go threw it. Basically most laws that regulate or deregulate or handles any non budget related law is not to passed using it. Moving healthcare to a free market system requires significant deregulation and many non-budget related laws, therefore Republicans must jump through legal and logical hula hoops just to have a watered down bill capable of meeting the strict reconciliation rules. one example of this is the individual mandate since it's basically a regulation of sorts so it can't be "repealed" via reconciliation, instead rebulicans simply reduced the penalty to zero in order to comply with the reconciliation rules.

 

[drbrumley]

The best comparison for healthcare would be between Canada and the US - which share 5,525 miles of common border.

Canada adopted a universal system in the late 1960's, after Saskatchewan demonstrated that it could be successful introduced into a rural, North American setting.

Life expectancy, a common measure for the success of any healthcare system, was approximately the same for both countries and Canadians in the late 1960's, but the gap favouring Canadians spread to almost 3 years with its introduction of universal medical care!

Whatever its difficulties, most Canadian are just thankful that they live north of the border when it comes to healthcare!

Even Canadians Are Waking Up . . .
Thomas DiLorenzo





. . . to the systemic awfulness of socialized healthcare, writes Canadian Cathy LeBoeuf-Schouten (cathy.schouten@hotmail.com).* After publishing an article on LewRockwell.com entitled. “My Canadian Healthcare Horror Stories,” Cathy discovered that the article had elicited 27,000 hits from all over the Canadian blogosphere.* The article produced “a cascade effect” of other Canadians sharing their socialized healthcare stories, she wrote me.* She appeared on several state radio (CBC) shows where she “got across many points that I have seen raised on LewRockwell.com, by people such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, Tom DiLorenzo et al,” and the CBC host even promoted her article*from LewRockwell.com.
“The turmoil of the American debate on healthcare has percolated up to us,” she writes.* “People are now sharing horror stories and realizing that the awfulness is systemic.* My [American] friends, take this as proof that no matter what your government may say about Canadians’ general satisfaction with their socialized medicine, there is huge dissension and people are looking for alternatives.”
Who knows, Canadians may move in the direction of healthcare freedom while Americans embrace the totalitarian alternative.

 

[jgarden]

And they can keep their junk of a program...

Many Canadians spend their winters in the southern US and are pretty knowledgeable as to how both countries compare in a number of areas.

There are reasons why Canadians aren't taking advantage of their 5 252 miles of largely unprotected border, trying to experience the "American Dream!"

The reality is that the "American Dream" is prospering far better north of the border!

 

[jeffblue101]

here is another example on how tough its going to be on rebulicans just to pass a watered down bill that passes the reconciliation process.

http://www.newsweek.com/senate-health-care-planned-parenthood-gamble-628414

But the bigger problem Senate Republicans may face by including the Planned Parenthood language is a procedural one: The provision may run afoul of Senate rules. GOP leaders are tyring to move their bill through the chamber under a process known as "reconciliation," which allows them to avoid a Democratic filibuster. But under that process, legislation has to stick very strictly to budgetary issues, not any other "extraenous" policies. Planned Parenthood is already out with a statement declaring the Senate draft breaks those rules. "Experts agree the 'defund' Planned Parenthood provision is a violation of the Byrd Rule because it is politically-motivated policy," the group asserted.

A senior Republican Senate aide conceded Thursday that the authors of the bill are unsure if the Planned Parenthood provision will pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan official who has the power to deny the majority's bid to consider the rules under reconciliation. Without reconciliation, Democrats can blockade a vote on the legislation unless Republicans can win 60 votes (which is not going to happen). "There will be ongoing conversations with the parliamentarian," one aide told reporters Thursday afternoon. "I’m not prepared to say today what her opinion might be."