Gingrich on the health care mandate

[a777pilot]

The Republicans will keep the House, take control of the Senate and be in the White House come JAN 2013, but BoboCare will live on. It will NOT be repealed. Nothing in Washington, D.C. is ever repealed. It needs to be repealed but it won't be. We are doomed to a future of mediocrity and debt.

 

[PLC1]

You're a pragmatist, you believe in doing "whatever works"... Why not force everyone to eat a healthy balanced diet, force everyone to perform a daily exercise regimen, force everyone to have regular checkups to catch problems early, ban any activity that poses a threat to ones health, etc.?

Such a use of force by the state would certainly lower the cost of HC, increase the average life span and make for a much healthier population. Only freedom stands in the way of your pragmatic solutions fixing the problems in HC but it's nothing a totalitarian state can't deal with.

You can't force anyone to live a healthy lifestyle any more than you can force them to give up their favorite drug of choice. However, you can say, you aren't going to force the rest of us to pay for your shortsightedness any more. The options are as I outlined above.

Are you for the Haiti plan?

 

[dogtowner]

The options are as I outlined above.

hmmm interesting response.

 

[GenSeneca]

However, you can say, you aren't going to force the rest of us to pay for your shortsightedness any more. The options are as I outlined above.

The rest of us should be forced to pay for, or at the very least subsidize, people who can't afford HC... That is your position. Of course your rationale is that we're forced to pay anyway, so we may as well make it official policy...

People who earn an income are subject to the Income Tax... That's official policy. However, 47% avoid contributing to the Income Tax, leaving the other 53% responsible for covering 100% of the Income Tax bill.

Your "plan" to make "everyone" pay for HC would just be more of the same, a larger and larger % of people would be exempted from having to contribute while a smaller and smaller % of the population would face ever increasing taxes in an attempt to cover the difference.

Meanwhile HC will continue to get more expensive, making more people exempt from contributing, the government will continue to run massive, and growing, deficits, and the "free market" will be blamed for a failing HC system entirely funded and controlled by government mandates and regulation.

Are you for the Haiti plan?

I would answer but I know well enough that such a question is a red herring meant to shift the focus away from you defending your position to attacking mine. I would like to know why you see the federal level as the ONLY option? Let the states implement your collectivist ideas and when that state goes bankrupt, the other states can learn what NOT to do and we haven't put the entire nation at risk.

 

[PLC1]

The rest of us should be forced to pay for, or at the very least subsidize, people who can't afford HC... That is your position. Of course your rationale is that we're forced to pay anyway, so we may as well make it official policy...

Not at all. I just recognize that there are limited options. Either we pay, one way or another, or we allow people to die of treatable illnesses and injuries. Right now, we choose to pay. Perhaps one day we won't.

People who earn an income are subject to the Income Tax... That's official policy. However, 47% avoid contributing to the Income Tax, leaving the other 53% responsible for covering 100% of the Income Tax bill.

That's just one tax.

Your "plan" to make "everyone" pay for HC would just be more of the same, a larger and larger % of people would be exempted from having to contribute while a smaller and smaller % of the population would face ever increasing taxes in an attempt to cover the difference.

We already do pay for health care. We just pay more than anyone else in the world, and get lesser results.

Meanwhile HC will continue to get more expensive, making more people exempt from contributing, the government will continue to run massive, and growing, deficits, and the "free market" will be blamed for a failing HC system entirely funded and controlled by government mandates and regulation.

Yes, unless we do something to control costs, health care will continue to get more and more expensive. That is precisely what has been happening for several decades now.

I would answer but I know well enough that such a question is a red herring meant to shift the focus away from you defending your position to attacking mine.

Not at all. The option of allowing people to die rather than paying for their care is what happens in Haiti, and several other third world nations. They do save a lot of money. We could go that route as well, but, if we do, let's acknowledge what we're doing.

I would like to know why you see the federal level as the ONLY option? Let the states implement your collectivist ideas and when that state goes bankrupt, the other states can learn what NOT to do and we haven't put the entire nation at risk.

Oh, I'm sure the states could enact health care plans of their own. Hasn't Hawaii already done so? I don't recall hearing about that state going bankrupt as a result. Maybe I missed it.

 

[dogtowner]

Oh, I'm sure the states could enact health care plans of their own. Hasn't Hawaii already done so? I don't recall hearing about that state going bankrupt as a result. Maybe I missed it.

yeah you missed it

actually killed of before it was permitted to bankrupt the state.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Another strawman post by our beloved HOP liberal. Always making up accusations that NO one is making. Why do you ALWAYS do this?

Let me give it a try...you and your kind believe in killing the unborn, why not the poor too?

you make them, your just not able to see its what your saying...

 

[PLC1]

yeah you missed it

actually killed of before it was permitted to bankrupt the state.

Hmm... from your link:

Government programs to create free or subsidized insurance will encourage many who currently have private insurance to join the government program. This is inefficient and will ultimately erode the private insurance system in the United States."

Erode private insurance? Well, sure, it will do that, and of course the insurance industry won't stand for it.

Inefficient? Why is it then that every nation that has UHC pays less than we do? Inefficient is the description of the patchwork system we have in the US.

 

[Gipper]

you make them, your just not able to see its what your saying...

why not just shoot the sick people, saves us time and money to not care for them. Put them down like dogs who can't make it anymore.

Pro life!

Okay my lefty friend. Now you MUST post credible sources proving your point that conservatives want the sick to die. Please post ASAP.

You continually post absurdities. This most stop. We here at the HOP are looking for intelligent debate not left wing talking points.

Others have been banned for what you have been doing for years. I wonder why you are exempt.

 

[Gipper]

Inefficient? Why is it then that every nation that has UHC pays less than we do? Inefficient is the description of the patchwork system we have in the US.

Good Lord...are you that unaware????

UHC MEANS rationing. Do you understand what rationing means? It is the biggest reason nations with UHC have lower costs.

Inefficient you say...hahahahaha....yeah UHC run by the government will be REALLY efficient just like all the other efficient things the government runs...

Haahahahahhahahhahahahahahaha....

YOU ARE TOO FUNNY!!!!!

 

[PLC1]

Good Lord...are you that unaware????

UHC MEANS rationing. Do you understand what rationing means? It is the biggest reason nations with UHC have lower costs.

Inefficient you say...hahahahaha....yeah UHC run by the government will be REALLY efficient just like all the other efficient things the government runs...

Haahahahahhahahhahahahahahaha....

YOU ARE TOO FUNNY!!!!!

Rationing? Oh, no, not rationing!

As opposed to the unlimited health care that we currently enjoy, who would want rationing?

 

[dogtowner]

Hmm... from your link:


Erode private insurance? Well, sure, it will do that, and of course the insurance industry won't stand for it.

Inefficient? Why is it then that every nation that has UHC pays less than we do? Inefficient is the description of the patchwork system we have in the US.

perhaps a closer look is in order

this PDF shows comparative costs of routine medical procedures. why is it that Argentina only charged $86 where its hundreds elsewhere ? Why is Lipitor 43 cents in France and considerably more elsewhere ?

sadly the PDF does not address these questions but is interesting nonetheless.

I doubt it can all be attributed to rationing but by the same token efficiency of claims processing can't explain it either.

Litigation/defensive medicine ? probably has an effect some estimates place it quite signficant. education costs ? equipment costs ? other ? it would take far more research than befits a chat board but the point is, the causes are complex. and the solutions harder than just stating "single payer". we need real solutions to bring down the prices of things and darn few in the halls of power are talking about that.

 

[Gipper]

Rationing? Oh, no, not rationing!

As opposed to the unlimited health care that we currently enjoy, who would want rationing?

There you go again...just like clockwork.

You claim our HC costs are higher than nations with UHC and then foolishly conclude the UHC MUST BE MORE efficient. You base this on the wonderful track record government has at being efficent.... Can you not see how silly your thinking is?

Now you try to confuse the debate (or, more likely you are confused) by screaming about rationing.

My dear old fellow, the reason HC is cheaper in nations with UHC is because they ration it. And, those nations do not have the outrageous trial lawyers (who own your beloved D party) whose constant lawsuits drive up costs...TOO!!!!!

Debating you is like trying to shoot a chipmunk at 100 yards. You are all over the place.

 

[Dr.Who]

I can think of three ways:

1. Require health insurance.
2. Pay for people who don't have health insurance.
3. Deny people health care.

Is there a fourth option?

Yet again (and it is getting tiresome) re: #3, denying people either heath insurance or medicaid or medicare is NOT denying them health care. People who do not pay premiums for any of these do not deserve to make claims on any of these. What they can do is pay for treatment themselves or appeal to the generosity of family, friends, strangers, charities, or health care co-ops. We could even have gov systems to provide health care for those who never paid in as long as no tax payer money were used. Each of these falls under the heading of #2 or #4 which is have them pay themselves. Is there ever a time when people would be denied health care? If every health care provider abandoned his hypocratic oath to provide free care and every citizen of the country refused to donate to their needs then yes. The likelihood of that happening is close to nill. Maybe, just maybe, John Gacy would have been denied health care if he were sick - I still doubt even that.

 

[Dr.Who]

why not just shoot the sick people, saves us time and money to not care for them. Put them down like dogs who can't make it anymore.

Pro life!

Using different tools that is only happening in countries with socialized health care.

In the semi capitalistic country of the US not a single person is refused health care and never would be.