Is withholding health insurance murder?

[bluethread]

The left is seriously making the argument that if the Republican health insurance proposal is enacted into law, then "people will die". Will those people live forever, if the Republican proposal is not enacted into law? Also, is the Republican plan really withholding health insurance, or just adjusting how it is covered?

[bluethread]

Why don't you guys quit the mandatory insurance programs and instead try to institute free or universal health care, which can then be supplemented with (for the few things not covered) voluntary insurance?


(or keep the programs until such a time as you have free or universal health care instituted; that way no one is going to die or go without health care due to a lack of personal funds, while waiting for the better system to be put in place)


Peace!

there is no such thing as universal health care. That is partisan spin. There is government funded medical care, government mandated medical care, insurance funded medical care and out of pocket medical care. None of these options make sure everyone gets all the medical care they would like and none stops people from dying. The health care debate is over which one best distributes limited resources.

I believe that the Democrats got us into the current mess specifically to create the argument you have just made. Before Obamacare, government funded healthcare was not seen as a good solution for all of the reasons currently still under debate. The only difference now is that 25 million people lost their market based healthcare, which Obama said would not happen, and only 11 million people signed up for Obamacare, most of which got it at little or no cost through Medicaid expansion. This caused the premiums for those who were not subsidized to skyrocket and insurance companies to drop out one by one after three years. The insurance companies bought in because they were promised more full cost/low use premium payers and a 3yr federal Medicaid subsidy that they states would have to carry after the three. Since, the full cost/low use premium payers did not sign up and many states did not want to be caught paying the bill in the out years, Obamas insurance scheme did not pay off. This left Obamacare with only one, and in some places no, insurance companies buying in. This was all predictable and there were even stories that this was the deal that got the hard left on board. They knew it would fail and were happy to put us through all of this, because they hoped in the end to institute single payer government funded healthcare.

Now that you are up to speed. The question is, how does enacting a proposal that does not reduce Medicaid spending, but just reduces increase, constitute murder. Also, even if that is a fair assessment, why didn't causing 25 million people to lose they health insurance and drastic increases in premiums not constitute murder?

[tam]

[Replying to post 11 by bluethread]

Universal health care, sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage, or universal care, usually refers to a health care system that provides health care and financial protection to all citizens of a particular country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada


I'm not suggesting that "Obamacare" falls under the above. I don't know enough about it. I'm just suggesting that other countries have made it work, and perhaps the States should concentrate on instituting similar models. Maybe they could even improve upon the models already out there, who knows?

The question is, how does enacting a proposal that does not reduce Medicaid spending, but just reduces increase, constitute murder. Also, even if that is a fair assessment, why didn't causing 25 million people to lose they health insurance and drastic increases in premiums not constitute murder?

I can't say if it would constitute murder.

But if someone has access to something that is helping them to stay alive... and if that access is taken away, and they no longer receive the needed healthcare they were formerly receiving, and so die... wouldn't the person/organization that took away that access bear some responsibility?**

I don't know if that is what is happening with your health care woes. Just going with what I'm reading...


Peace again to you!

** providing of course that they did not HAVE to take it away; as in there was no possible way to keep providing that access

[JP Cusick]

The left is seriously making the argument that if the Republican health insurance proposal is enacted into law, then "people will die". Will those people live forever, if the Republican proposal is not enacted into law? Also, is the Republican plan really withholding health insurance, or just adjusting how it is covered?

Socialist health care or the single payer health care is the only truly ethical form of health care.

The very "best" health care is when very rich people pay for the best Doctors and the latest advances, while the poorer population get cheated and mistreated or worse.

I agree that people will die and keep dying no matter what gets done, and that reality needs to be addressed first, but our paranoid and spoiled society has no stomach for a real discussion about death.

The original plan to create "death panels" was the right thing to do, and many Hospitals already have the equivalent to the death panels deciding if they are to stop the treatment or not.

Obamacare really was just heath insurance reform - when we needed universal health care.

The Republican plans will not fix the problem, even if they do make their selves happy.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 11 by bluethread]

Universal health care, sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage, or universal care, usually refers to a health care system that provides health care and financial protection to all citizens of a particular country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada

The problem is that it doesn't. Health care is a limited commodity. Either the amount of individual coverage most be limited or there has to be rationing. That said, if anyone dies waiting for care, would you call that murder?

I'm not suggesting that "Obamacare" falls under the above. I don't know enough about it. I'm just suggesting that other countries have made it work, and perhaps the States should concentrate on instituting similar models. Maybe they could even improve upon the models already out there, who knows?

Who knows? That is the operative phrase. There is no end of experts that believe that they know how to manage the quality of life for 3 and quarter million people in a fair and equitable fashion. I hope you excuse me if I doubt that any of them can really do a better job than the free market. Again, is it appropriate to call anything less murder?

The question is, how does enacting a proposal that does not reduce Medicaid spending, but just reduces increase, constitute murder. Also, even if that is a fair assessment, why didn't causing 25 million people to lose they health insurance and drastic increases in premiums not constitute murder?

I can't say if it would constitute murder.

But if someone has access to something that is helping them to stay alive... and if that access is taken away, and they no longer receive the needed healthcare they were formerly receiving, and so die... wouldn't the person/organization that took away that access bear some responsibility, providing of course that they did not HAVE to take it away; as in there was no possible way to keep providing that access

Well, in these United States critical care was provided without regard to ability to pay before Obamacare. What Obamacare was designed for was dealing with concern about insurance and cost, not critical care.

[WinePusher]

Socialist health care or the single payer health care is the only truly ethical form of health care.

It's actually the most unethical, immoral form of healthcare that has led to the deaths of innumerable amounts of people. Go crack open a history book and read about the horrors of socialism. Oh wait, you don't even need to go back in time to learn about how awful and deadly socialism is. Just look at the modern day wreck that is known as Venezuela and compare it to its thriving capitalist counterpart, Chile.

The very "best" health care is when very rich people pay for the best Doctors and the latest advances, while the poorer population get cheated and mistreated or worse.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to be sarcastic or something?

Obamacare really was just heath insurance reform - when we needed universal health care.

Why would we want to adopt a universal health care system when it has been a complete disaster for every single country that's implemented it? Take the national health service in Britain as an example. Both the British and the American healthcare systems are far from perfect, and I am by no means defending the current state of American healthcare.

However, the problems faced by the NHS in Britain and the healthcare system in America are drastically different. America suffers from one simple problem: inflation. The cost of medical care as astronomically skyrocketed, and this has led insurance companies to raise premiums and payments. On the otherhand, while the NHS is free at the point of delivery, the quality of medical care in Britain is atrocious. The internal problems in the NHS are well known, as is the horrible care that patients receive. That's what happens when you get a service for FREE, the quality of the service goes to ZERO.

Now, the problem of rising medical expenses in America can be easily resolved in a variety of ways. And certainly it is a much easier problem to solve than what the Brits and the Canadians face with their embarrassingly horrible quality health services.

[Mountainmanbob]

We can't afford to give everyone exactly what they want regarding health care.

And some will still cry no matter what is offered.

We have given away too much in the past and the people are addicted.

The Bible tells me to go work and get mine.

Only for the (truly) handicapped ones should we provide for free.

Everybody seems to love free -- who the heck is paying?

Oh there they are -- take it from the rich -- don't be a thief!

Go work for yours -- you will feel better regarding yourself.

M-Bob

[JP Cusick]

Socialist health care or the single payer health care is the only truly ethical form of health care.

It's actually the most unethical, immoral form of healthcare that has led to the deaths of innumerable amounts of people. Go crack open a history book and read about the horrors of socialism. Oh wait, you don't even need to go back in time to learn about how awful and deadly socialism is. Just look at the modern day wreck that is known as Venezuela and compare it to its thriving capitalist counterpart, Chile.

I did not say to change the entire USA into socialism - just that health care is a unique thing which keeps demanding that we provide as much as we can to as many as we can = universal.

If we just took the trillion (with a T) dollars we wasted in the murder of Muslims on the other side of the planet and put our tax dollars into health care then we could already have universal health care in the USA being fully funded and booming (instead of bombing).

The very "best" health care is when very rich people pay for the best Doctors and the latest advances, while the poorer population get cheated and mistreated or worse.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to be sarcastic or something?

I suppose that is a bit sarcastic, and sarcasm is not a healthy nor productive way to communicate, but in that one sentence the point seemed excessively obvious to me.

In the USA the very rich do get the very best health care - so that is the best - but at the same time the poorer population get cheated and mistreated or worse - that is not complicated to see - especially since that is the reality that we have going on now in the USA.

Obamacare really was just heath insurance reform - when we needed universal health care.

Why would we want to adopt a universal health care system when it has been a complete disaster for every single country that's implemented it? Take the national health service in Britain as an example. Both the British and the American healthcare systems are far from perfect, and I am by no means defending the current state of American healthcare.

The idea for the USA is to learn from other Countries like Britain and Canada and Sweden and other Countries and then make our system to work better here.

And you are being excessive or exaggerating or just foolish to claim that the British health care is a disaster because it is not. We can see it in the terrorist attacks that the British health care system handled the crises with professional efficiency and the British people are not complaining about their health care system.

[bluethread]

Now, the problem of rising medical expenses in America can be easily resolved in a variety of ways. And certainly it is a much easier problem to solve than what the Brits and the Canadians face with their embarrassingly horrible quality health services.

I'll leave you to deal with JP, because you are better armed with evidence. My arguments are primarily philosophical. That said, I would like to note that the problems of the Brit system and the US system are two sides of the same coin. The Brits stifle consumer choice by replacing the market with government. In these United States, we stifle consumer choice via regulation and tort under the principle of "best practices". One solution to lose of access via governmental triage or inflationary triage would be to focus the law on "informed consent", i.e. individual triage, and otherwise get the government out of healthcare. What think you?

[Bust Nak]

The Brits stifle consumer choice by replacing the market with government.

You still have the option to go private if NHS doesn't offer what you want.

[JP Cusick]

The Brits stifle consumer choice by replacing the market with government.

You still have the option to go private if NHS doesn't offer what you want.

There it is - the perfect solution.

Universal health care for the entire population.

Of course we would still have to make sure that the best Doctors will not be exploited into just serving the rich.