Right to Life

The Christian Democratic Nation of Culture of Life wrote:

Allowing people to buy insurance after they need it defeats the very purpose of insurance.

Right. So when a person needs it, you shouldn't charge them more for it

The Christian Democratic Nation of Culture of Life wrote:

*facepalm*
No, people should buy insurance before they need it.

Right, in ideal. But do people do this in reality, especially when it presents a huge financial barrier? Or do people take the risk.

The Christian Democratic Nation of Culture of Life wrote:

Also, the reason a lot of young, healthy people forgo insurance under Obamacare is that Obamacare artificially inflates costs for young people. It imposes an "age band" of 3:1 on health insurers. In other words, Obamacare requires insurers not to charge older consumers more than three times the cost for younger consumers. To make up for the lost revenue, health insurers raise the cost of insurance for 20-somethings and 30-somethings.

Is the reason for this to prevent discrimination against the old, who generally cost more to provide insurance for?

The Christian Democratic Nation of Culture of Life wrote:

or it the ratio entirely arbitrary?

*is

The Cold and Broken Hallelujah of United Massachusetts wrote:

Oh, what--the skinny repeal? Give me a break. That was a sham from the very beginning, only designed to move forward towards reconciliation with the House, which would have created an even more extreme version, much like the ones we saw to take away healthcare from 20+ million people--an immoral, inhuman disaster that would cause premiums to soar for the very people Trump promised to help. The "skinny repeal" was never, ever a real option, but was rather designed to move the process forward.

Only if by "take away" healthcare you mean to stop making illegal the crime of people who have the gall not to have health insurance, and stop fining them because they are unwilling or unable to purchase a plan that the act has made more expensive after getting kicked off the healthcare they earlier had because of the single greatest lie in Presidential history.

Allowing someone to decline is as much 'taking away' healthcare as not having a draft is banning people from the military, or ceasing to force-feed someone is starving them.

This is, of course, before counting those seven or so million who the CBO is counting as having healthcare when they do not, because of how openly, notoriously bad they are at constantly predicting the ACA was going to end up so much better than it did?

And remembering at that that in this country there are now forty-seven counties where there are zero ACA providers, which means that not only can you not purchase healthcare on an exchange, but the government will fine you for daring to not buy the thing that they made impossible to buy. Or the third of the counties in this country in which you have exactly one option, and if you don't like it, well, pay Uncle Sam for that, because that's just straight-up unacceptable.

Or were you referring to Medicaid, the program which studies have shown to have no significant medical advantage to those who do not even have insurance at all? More money off of that means more funds available for them to purchase actual beneficial private insurance: but for some reason the measure of success is now just the raw number of people insured, not if that insurance is any good, or actually means anything.

(http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321#t=article)

The Cold and Broken Hallelujah of United Massachusetts wrote:

But sure, if you want, let's examine the death spiral that the "Health Care Freedom Act" creates, and why it is a ridiculously irresponsible option.
The skinny repeal bill keeps the requirement that insurance companies let everyone in, regardless of whether they have a pre-existing condition or not. It doesn't change this part of Obamacare (the popular part), so, naturally, because more sick people are let onto insurance plans because of Obamacare, premiums go up slightly to accommodate this. Republicans have yelled and complained about this rise in premiums, but if they want to ban discrimination based off health condition, then the rise in premiums will occur no matter what.
So then, the Republicans go and repeal the unpopular part--the individual mandate. So, because they are no longer required to have healthcare, some young, healthy people leave saying "I don't need this at all." Sure enough, premiums have to rise again to make up for the lost revenue. Then, more people leave after seeing their premiums rise, willing to take the risk. Premiums rise again. This cycle then repeats until you have only the sickest receiving care at ridiculously high costs, defeating the very purpose of health insurance.
This cycle isn't just theory--it actually has happened in New York, which protected those with pre-existing conditions without adding an individual mandate. The same cycle I described occurred as premiums rose to over $1,200/month. In came Obamacare, and the premiums fell to under $600/month. [1] Sure, in most places, premiums rose. I'm not disputing this; it is something that needs to be worked on. It's a natural consequence of what Obamacare did--got many more sick people to get health insurance. And most people seem to like a lot of Obamacare, except the mandate. But you can't have your cake and eat it too; one cannot do all the other wonderful things the ACA did without the individual mandate.

I'll agree with you full here-this is absolutely true. TrumpCare is a rebranded ACA, not an actual solution. The fact is that the only thing that is keeping the ACA from completely collapsing is the ludicrous proposition that we make not having insurance a crime, after the government went and made it harder to get insurance. The only thing making the "good-guy" plan work in the slightest is straight-up blackmail.

All of these TrumpCares have been ridiculous, because Trump doesn't have the slightest idea what he is doing or what he wants. They are not actual solutions. That's what repeal should be about.

The Cold and Broken Hallelujah of United Massachusetts wrote:

The skinny repeal is a disaster for the sick, and so has every other plan been. I challenge you to look into the eyes of a Medicaid patient and tell them that you are fine with taking away their healthcare to give what is effectively a tax break to the wealthy [2]. Tell them you're fine with putting their life and financial security at risk because you can't deal with the "communism" of a solution that preserves the free markets for healthcare. I can't, and I won't. It's immoral, unjust, scandalous, irresponsible, and pro-death.

Except you can look into the eyes of that Medicaid patient and give them an actual scientifically rigorous study that that healthcare isn't doing them any good. You can do that and point out the fact that a third of the counties in this country now have a monopolistic system, where it's not just that you might not get a plan you like, but that with the ACA driving out insurers, you may be stuck unable to actually get a plan that can cover what you absolutely need.

(http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/27/obamacare-wont-pay-back-surgery-will-pay-opioids/)

The Cold and Broken Hallelujah of United Massachusetts wrote:

This is what I mean when I say that the GOP is pro-death just as much as the Democrats. As soon as life is born, it isn't worthy of protection anymore, they are effectively saying.

Worthy of protection by people, not by government, and by charity, not by redistribution. The constant refrain that if you don't want government to do it, that you just want those people to suffer, a constant smear.

Evil pro-death Republicans give more to charity than Democrats. They're even better tippers. The thing is, they're the ones who are more likely to be willing to go out there and actually do something good themselves, rather than take money from someone else and donate that, and feel good about themselves.

Rand Paul, the man who's pushing for a full repeal of the ACA more than anyone else, spends his time giving free eye surgeries for the uninsured.

(http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/rand-paul-performs-free-eye-surgery-for-uninsured-patients/)

But sure, he's actually a cold-hearted murderer, because he does good things himself instead of using government coercion to do it.

The Cold and Broken Hallelujah of United Massachusetts wrote:

Let the fittest survive, they say--have those lazy, slothful, indolent poor people pull themselves up by their own "non-existent" bootstraps. Take away their Medicaid.

A terribly ineffective and expensive program.

The Cold and Broken Hallelujah of United Massachusetts wrote:

Let insurance companies deny them healthcare.

Because the alternative here has done so much good in the forty-seven counties where there is now no one there to even deny healthcare at all.

The Cold and Broken Hallelujah of United Massachusetts wrote:

Refuse to provide for their education.

I assume you mean "try to allow them an actual choice in education"? Because that's the platform. It's the Democratic Party that's saying "Not rich? Well, have fun in your run-down neighborhood school!"

The Cold and Broken Hallelujah of United Massachusetts wrote:

Cut all social safety nets; if they wanted to get ahead, they would get a job.

You will find very few Republicans who want to remove all social safety nets-those that do tend to emphasize private charity. What is actually pushed for is reforming the system to something that actually encourages and promotes getting a job, and getting off of welfare, an actual safety net, not a hammock, avoiding this sort of thing.

(http://www.dailywire.com/news/19006/watch-welfare-queen-brags-about-raping-government-amanda-prestigiacomo)

The Cold and Broken Hallelujah of United Massachusetts wrote:

Quite frankly, it sickens me what the modern-day GOP has become.

If you mean the Trump GOP, I won't disagree with you. If you mean those members of the GOP who commit the sin of not worshipping government-I will not.

Single tax payer healthcare system all the way.

Slavic Lechia