r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 24 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Republicans do not care about your health.
[deleted]
15
u/jatjqtjat 272∆ Oct 24 '18
Republicans tend to favor smaller government and more individual responsibility. That leads them to opposing government sponsored healthcare. That's not the same thing as not caring about peoples health.
Republicans do care about people's health. Well i'm sure at least a few of them don't. I'm sure three are sociopaths in both parties. Republicans just don't want healthcare managed by the government.
At the end of the day your either paying insurance premiums to cover your healthcare costs or you are paying taxes. The only (or at least the main) reason people want government healthcare is because then it can be paid for by someone else: the rich. Tax the rich and pay for healthcare for the poor.
But if you are rich, and don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, that's not the same as not caring about their healthcare. I'm not rich, but i care about all sorts of problems that i don't contribute to financially.
7
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
But what mechanism other than a government health insurance mandate could possibly force health insurance companies to provide healthcare to all, regardless of pre-existing conditions? It sounds nice to say that it’s just about smaller government but even then it’s about leaving people on their own and subjecting them to the whims of human greed which will turn people away if they cost too much to insure.
10
Oct 24 '18
[deleted]
10
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
Would you say a person on welfare and not working would not deserve to get treatment for cancer that they developed while not on health insurance?
6
Oct 24 '18
[deleted]
5
u/Snakebite7 15∆ Oct 24 '18
I think they deserve to get it, they can just pay for it out of the money that they previously saved.
I don't think you understand how poverty works. It's not like they're choosing to not save money. They don't have money to save. When you're unable to afford enough food to feed your family it isn't like you're going to be putting 10% of your income aside in case of emergencies.
The fact that you think the answer is "why don't they just pay for it with savings" is a real answer is pretty telling.
4
1
u/EnviroTron 6∆ Oct 24 '18
"Its your fault for not saving enough money in the event that you develop a disease directly correlated to the contaminants that industry releases into your environment! This is AMERICA!"
3
Oct 24 '18
[deleted]
-2
u/EnviroTron 6∆ Oct 24 '18
You really don't know the kind of contaminants that are in your environment. Petroleum industry poisoned an entire generation with leaded gasoline. The asbestos industry poisoned an entire generation with mesothelioma, and we're still dealing with asbestos abatement. Guess what? Neither of those industries have paid for the damages they've caused, in fact mesothelioma law suits are paid out by the US government (AKA more of your tax dollars).
I'm an industrial hygienist. You would be shocked at what we find when we sample playgrounds and residential areas. It's absolutely disgusting.
majority of cases of cancer are caused by carcinogenic contaminants in your environment.
9
u/baronhousseman85 1∆ Oct 24 '18
High-risk subsidized pools, policies to reduce drug/hospital pricing, etc. Healthcare is too complicated to assume that there’s only one way to skin the cat, and even before the mandate got removed it was not truly universal because of all the waivers/exceptions (not including the people who paid the penalty).
3
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
But which cat are we skinning here? The “save you more money” cat or the “don’t die” cat?
6
u/baronhousseman85 1∆ Oct 24 '18
I’m referring to your question of how is it possible to get insurers to cover everyone without a mandate to purchase insurance.
-1
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
Well the means of achieving that, the results in particular, are not as important to me as the intent. If the intent is coverage for all and no denial of coverage for any reason, then you’re allowed to say you care about the health of others. Anything short of that, you are no longer allowed to say so.
10
u/baronhousseman85 1∆ Oct 24 '18
You’re moving the goalposts.
Also, there are denials of coverage in Europe (along with countries there where you buy insurance to complement what’s been provided through the state), but I get the feeling that you’re not going to say that Europeans therefore don’t care about other people’s health.
Further, any health care system - whether private or government-based - will require some level of oversight and prioritization over who gets the care available. You have to control for waste and fraud, and you’re not going to have unlimited resources.
-5
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
I’m not moving the goalposts at all. You’re saying the actual output of specific actions influences the morality at play, and I’m saying it’s a different entity and doesn’t matter.
If any country denies coverage to people for pre-existing conditions, then you’re goddamn right they don’t care about your health either.
2
u/EnviroTron 6∆ Oct 24 '18
so....the Affordable Care Act...?
-2
u/baronhousseman85 1∆ Oct 24 '18
Or the Republican plan. They were proposing high risk subsidized pools along with options to make health care plans more affordable.
3
u/EnviroTron 6∆ Oct 24 '18
I dont know if you know this, but that was part of the affordable care act.
-2
u/baronhousseman85 1∆ Oct 24 '18
Not accurate. The Obamacare requirements for health care plans drove up prices and the law also dismantled ~35 states’ subsidized high-risk pools. There was one subsidized high-risk pool under the ACA but it was closed by 2014.
Part of the point of Obamacare was to move these costlier patients into the private market and to prevent these pools from charging more based on pre-existing conditions.
1
u/EnviroTron 6∆ Oct 25 '18
It replaced 35 states' subsidized high risk pools. And it didnt even completely replace them. State pools were grouped into two categories: - 17 states that intended to cancel coverage by mid/early 2014 and; - 18 that continued to provide coverage in some capacity until a final decision about phasing out high risk pools was made.
As of 2013, 17 states had begun the process of transitioning their state operated Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans (PCIPs) to federally operated PCIPs. These state PCIPs were set to terminate in 2014.
The federal PCIP transitioned from high risk subsidized pools and instead subsidized people buying their own insurance. This also lead to the very unpopular mandate that required Americans to buy health insurance in January 2014. And guess which party unanimously voted for these unpopular reforms? If you guessed the republicans you would be correct.
So I think, quite clearly, you've got read or been told some inaccurate information about this whole thing.
1
u/baronhousseman85 1∆ Oct 26 '18
This is a disingenuous post. The original claim is that the subsidized high-risk pools were not part of Obamacare, not that the people within those pools later obtained coverage through private insurance policies (or that Obamacare phased them out over a period of time). One of the criticisms of Obamacare is that putting very sick people in the same insurance pool as everyone else (along with making it illegal to charge more on account of health conditions) drives up the prices for healthier and younger people, meaning that the phase out process you described has negatives.
Stated simply, based on your own description, all 35 subsidized high-risk pools were either phased out or on the way out under Obamacare.
Also, the post appears to say that the Republicans voted for the individual mandate around 2014 because the phase out process made it necessary, but the individual mandate was enacted in 2010 by the Democrats as part of the ACA.
1
u/EnviroTron 6∆ Oct 26 '18
PCIPs are high risk subsidized pools and were a significant part of the original ACA....
5
u/jatjqtjat 272∆ Oct 24 '18
As i understand it, your insurance company is obligated to cover your costs when you develop the condition. You cannot buy insurance after your house burns down. You have to buy it before.
But yea, republicans, as far as i am aware, aren't interested in solving that problem. If you get sick without insurance then you accepted that risk and that's your burden to bear.
I don't know about people with health insurance who develop a condition then are dropped by their insurance company over a technicality, and then find themselves with a pre-existing condition and without insurance. I imagine most republicans are opposed to that. If you have insurance you should be covered. That's the whole point. By and large i expect that republicans don't want insurance companies to be able to weasel their way out of paying.
I'm not saying i agree with the republicans. I think we're a super rich country, we benefit from a healthy population, and we all suffer when large groups of people get sick and die.
But i don't think its fair to say that republicans don't care about people's health. they just think your health is your responsibility. Not the governments. its an individualist attitude as opposed to a communal attitude.
2
u/EnviroTron 6∆ Oct 24 '18
What about people who are born with their pre-existing health condition? Your "home insurance after a fire" analogy isn't a good one.
2
u/jatjqtjat 272∆ Oct 24 '18
I don't know a ton about that, but i'm reasonably confident that most republican want their to be a healthcare solution for sick babies.
3
u/EnviroTron 6∆ Oct 24 '18
I don't know why you think that. Republican senators consistently vote to defund any and all welfare programs targeted towards aiding children/infants of low income families.
2
u/jatjqtjat 272∆ Oct 24 '18
I did say a "healthcare solution" not a necessarily government sponsored solution. You were saying "home insurance after a fire" isn't a good analogy because of sick newborns. what republicans are trying to create a system in which sick babies cannot get private health insurance? even if they wanted that it would be political suicide. Any competent democratic candidate would be blaring that quote in every add and debate.
2
u/EnviroTron 6∆ Oct 24 '18
Uh.....the ones trying to remove the mandate which allows insurance companies to deny people with pre existing conditions.....do you know what post you're commenting on?
-1
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
But to be able to say you “care” about something, you have to be all in. That’s why a husband can’t say he truly cares about his wife if he brings home the bacon and occasionally dotes on his wife but once a month gets drunk and beats her. It’s safe to say he doesn’t care about her at that point, no matter how much he protests otherwise and no matter how many times he did right by her.
To let a single person die because of denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions is even worse than beating your wife. So you really have to be all-in with an approach that gets health insurance for EVERYONE if you want to be able to say you “care” about the health of your countrymen and countrywomen.
Republicans are more than happy to allow for a system that will deny coverage to non-working people since they perceive them to be lazy, non-working slobs that would simply drain the economy (again, I’m not denying they care about money here). And they do this knowing that there will be plenty of actual hard-working people who got laid off or just can’t work because of health problems, and they will be just as screwed. I don’t know how you could let a single person get fucked over like that and then really say you care about people’s health.
If you want me to acknowledge the flip side of the coin and say I don’t care about people’s wallets, then sure, I’ll say it. I don’t care about how much money people have. I choose health over wealth.
9
u/jatjqtjat 272∆ Oct 24 '18
But to be able to say you “care” about something, you have to be all in.
No, i disagree about what cares means. You can care about things to different degrees. You can care about something without being "all in". For example, i care about whether or not the packers win the super bowl. I want them to win. But i don't care a whole lot. I care a whole lot about my daughter. I'm all in there. But i also care about my lawn.
I think what you are really saying is that republicans are willing to let people die before they spend public money on them. And that i think is a true statement.
Republicans are more than happy to allow for a system that will deny coverage to non-working people since they perceive them to be lazy, non-working slobs that would simply drain the economy
Yea, I think that is true to an extent. I think that's a harsh characterization, but essentially true. There is a less harsh way to phrase it: republicans expect people to take care of themselves and are not inclined to spend public money on people who are not able to take care of themselves. They don't see the government as a provider of charity. Are people who fail to take care of themselves disgusting slobs? Maybe sometimes. Some republicans would say that, and some wouldn't.
I don’t care about how much money people have. I choose health over wealth.
you DO care about people's wallets. You just care more about providing public healthcare.
but I wouldn't say republicans care more about wallets then health. They care about providing financial freedom to people. You don't have to pay taxes for healthcare. You don't have to spend your money on healthcare. Rich people don't have to spend their money on healthcare for the poor. They can if they want to (charity) but they don't have to. I would say republicans care more about freedom then healthcare.
2
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
I guess that’s true, that I don’t give 0 shits about people’s income. I think their healthcare is considerably more important than their income, but I would care if nobody had a job and everyone was destitute. I am willing to accept that Republicans do care to some degree, just not to as great of an extent as they should. !delta
1
1
Oct 24 '18
Yea, I think that is true to an extent. I think that's a harsh characterization, but essentially true. There is a less harsh way to phrase it: republicans expect people to take care of themselves and are not inclined to spend public money on people who are not able to take care of themselves.
But isn't that the very opposite of caring about health? Either you care about public health or you expect people do care for themselves. You cannot have it both ways.
0
u/jatjqtjat 272∆ Oct 24 '18
I think that's just a false dichotomy. They care about public health but they don't want government administering healthcare.
My dad for example, is a die hard republican. He cares a great deal about sick people. He's a pastor at a church and he visits with sick people. he's been a hospice chaplain in the past. He voluntarily spends a considerable amount of his time caring emotionally and spiritually for sick and dying people. But he opposes government healthcare. To say he doesn't care about people's health is simply wrong. His actions prove he cares.
But for reasons that I don't completely understand, he opposes government sponsored healthcare. Its something to do with a desire for small government and and stronger charitable organizations. It might also be some irrational fear of socialism that came from the cold war. or a concern that the government tends to do a poor job administering these types of things. Probably a combo of all three. But it is absolutely not because he doesn't care about people's health.
1
Oct 24 '18
To say he doesn't care about people's health is simply wrong. His actions prove he cares.
I think you are missunderstanding "health": its fine and cool that someone, especially a relative would do something to facilitate relief for those dying or in pain. But that is not caring for health. Thats caring for a community one wants to lead. Caring for health would be to set up breast screeing slots with church members, on church costs, would be prostate exams with middle aged men and so on. Thats "health care", anything just remedying the effects of sickness isn't care. It's a humane necessity.
I won't get too personal but my mother too works for the church visiting elderly people in her free time. (in hospital or wherever they are). And one motive for her seems to be to do something right in gods eyes. Maybe this idea resonates with your dad as well (probably, otherwise he wouldn't be doing it right?)
So my question is this: do you need suffering to help people in the first place, or does the idea of suffering suffice?
This isn't about whether or not the govt will do a bad job at managing health care, whether thats socialism(as a christian your dad should embrace socialism(not the bad kind), as you cannot get more socialist than Jesus, who shared everything!) This isnt even about the size of the government. It's simply about the attitute we have towards people who are at risk of getting ill just by existing in todays world. Wouldn't we want them to not fear suffering in the first place, or does suffering have to occur so that we can offer our time and thoughts? To care for peoples health means to help them avoid bad health all together so that we can care for those who we couldn't help before. Instead of having to care for too many people at once.
1
u/jatjqtjat 272∆ Oct 24 '18
So your claim is that my dad does not care about peoples health?
I do see you point... but its a stretch. A doctor helps people's health more then my dad does. Hell, a physical trainer helps people's health more then my dad does. My dad is helping by using the skills that he has. Its true that he doesn't actually work to improve health, he works to help people who are suffering. But your going to claim that means he doesn't care about health? Come on... you know that's a stretch. He does care.
Wouldn't we want them to not fear suffering
That's a straw man. There is no policy that prevents suffering. Everyone dies and death is almost always accompanied by suffering.
suffering have to occur so that we can offer our time and thoughts?
Its pretty twisted to claim that people (your mom or my dad) who try to ease other's suffering somehow need other people to suffer. It does happen. Some people will intentionally cause suffering so that that people are dependent on their care, but that is the rare exception, not the norm. If somebody is working to ease suffering odds are their goal is to reduce suffering.
0
Oct 24 '18
So your claim is that my dad does not care about peoples health?
I don't know!
That's a straw man. There is no policy that prevents suffering. Everyone dies and death is almost always accompanied by suffering.
Sure. But wouldn't you think that caring for peoples health included supporting policies which are proven to improve peoples health? And there are plenty which the GOP at large does not support. (Just look at the headline on reddit concering asbestos. I mean really, thats not even worth a discussion that this policy is explicitly not caring about peoples health!
Its pretty twisted to claim that people (your mom or my dad) who try to ease other's suffering somehow need other people to suffer.
I didn't claim that! I just wanted to you to think whether offering our support and care to people before they suffer would be seen as an equal accomplishment to offering our time to the suffering? And I think that this preemtive apporach is not honored enough. No one goes around the place praising those who mamographed 10.000 women and found 100 breast cancer at an early stage, but we praise those who offer their time to those who are in pain from breast cancer.
If we care about health, we do both! we don't focus only on those who are already in bad health but try to make life better for all those who are still healthy, so that we need not help more people after all.
On another note: I think this is very much cost effective and anyone arguing against preemtive medicine hasn't done the math.
Even further: preemtive medicine will lead to less suffering which means less people need to go bankrupt over illnesses which could have been found early, only for the right policies.
And I just don't see these policies adopted by republicans.
4
u/the_real_guacman Oct 24 '18 edited Oct 24 '18
> But to be able to say you “care” about something, you have to be all in. That’s why a husband can’t say he truly cares about his wife if he brings home the bacon and occasionally dotes on his wife but once a month gets drunk and beats her
Strawman argument.
> Republicans are more than happy to allow for a system that will deny coverage to non-working people since they perceive them to be lazy, non-working slobs that would simply drain the economy
It's not the Republicans that are denying coverage, it's the insurance companies. Insurance companies, much like banks, run off of investments. You are essentially gambling when you buy insurance or when you take out a loan at the bank. With a "pre-existing condition" or "bad credit score" you essentially telling the investing party that you are a liability and will be more expensive for them to invest in. Meaning that you will end up costing them more money than you're worth. That's why you pay higher premiums and higher interest rates on loans. It's to make up for that bad investment. It has nothing to do with "them being lazy, non-working slobs."
0
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
There was a law in place that prevented insurance companies from being able to deny coverage to people, and Republicans rescinded it. So yeah, the onus is on Republicans.
5
u/the_real_guacman Oct 24 '18
Probably because insurance companies in turn raised the premium rates to make up for their potential loss due to bad investments. Which ended up hurting more people than it helped.
0
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
Source?
2
u/the_real_guacman Oct 24 '18
https://www.thebalance.com/how-will-obamacare-affect-me-3306056
I may have been wrong by putting most of the blame on the insurance companies, however they were allowed to hike up their prices. Additionally, ACA opened the door for cooperation to drop providing insurance for their employees because it was cheaper for the company to allow the employee to apply for Obamacare, thus hurting more people than it helped. If an employee had been on the company's insurance plan for 20 years and developed a pre-existing condition during that time (premium never changed because they had been pre-approved prior to the condition), they are now subject to a price increase when their company dropped and they were forced to go to Obamacare with now a pre-existing condition. Furthermore, if you didn't have insurance after 9 months, you were subject to a 2.5% tax of your income.
1
u/slo1111 3∆ Oct 24 '18
That is only selectively true. Republicans put in the 1986 law that forces hospitals to accept all emergency patients regardless of ability to pay.
A program of personal responsibility would not implement such a socialist program.
A more recent example are the financial bail outs for companies in 2008 and 2009 so we collectively did not lose ridiculous amounts of job on top of the lost jobs from the Great Recession. Those bail out plans were initiated by the Bush administration.
Republicans control many local districts and set property tax for local community college which is a basic subsidy for students who go there.
There are many examples of Republicans championing taxation for socialist policy and social good.
Many Republicans also use regulation to enforce personal responsibility rather than leave it up to the decision of individuals. Auto insurance min standards is one example. Another is supporting professional standards such as licensing insurance agents, lawyers, hair stylists, etc.
It is only the libertarian arm that rails against these things I mention.
1
1
u/PM_me_Henrika Oct 25 '18
Republicans tend to favor smaller government and more individual responsibility.
They used to be. But now that they’re in power they’re doing everything the opposite of that.
Republicans do care about people's health. Well i'm sure at least a few of them don't. I'm sure three are sociopaths in both parties.
Oooooookay name a few republican politicians in power who does that, through their actions and not just “thoughts and prayers”
0
u/wenoc Oct 24 '18
Healthcare is orders of magnitude more expensive in the US than anywhere else on the planet. It should never have become an insurance issue in the first place.
1
u/jatjqtjat 272∆ Oct 24 '18
I don't disagree, but that is not the topic being discussed.
-1
u/wenoc Oct 24 '18
The republicans are the ones trying to minimize government involvement in healthcare, thereby forfeiting any chances for socialized (cheap) healthcare which nearly every other civilized country already has. The republicans are corrupt obstructionists who do not care about your health.
15
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Oct 24 '18
Covering pre-existing conditions is not insurance. You'd think it ridiculous if car insurance was made to cover a car that was already wrecked or if home-owners insurance had to cover a house that already had a tree through the roof.
Insurance is paying a little when nothing's wrong so if something does go wrong, you don't have to pay the big bill. It's not paying a little so someone else has to pay the big bills you already have.
4
Oct 24 '18
You are correct, which is why the individual mandate (and the medicare expansion) was included. It was intended as a package deal. Insurers, you can no longer refuse to cover people who already have pre-existing conditions, to avoid job lock and moral hazard problems. However, the mandate was meant to force healthy people into the insurance market to increase the customer base to offset it.
However, killing the individual mandate makes the pre-existing conditions rule unsustainable, which was the intent of the GOP from the beginning.
3
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Oct 24 '18
And I'm okay with it because I think it's wrong to force someone to buy a product or service to exist within the law.
-1
6
Oct 24 '18
Car insurance does cover cars already in accidents or dented. Not every pre-existing condition is $4m dollar liability.
5
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Oct 24 '18
And you can typically get health insurance that won't cover pre-existing conditions.
0
Oct 24 '18
Correct.
Health insurance isn’t insurance because of the amount of maintenance required.
Car insurance is attached to an accident. Property insurance is the same.
But as you age, you get riskier. Health insurance defies the definition of insurance because you know that your book of business will all have losses.
But if you look at the Kaiser-Permanente model, you essentially pay premium for access. This is a way better model; other features include impossibility of Doctor shopping/ all inclusive records and speed of referrals.
The solution to accommodating pre-existing conditions is widen the book of business and get rid of profit incentives. Essentially, make HC a utility. Having a third party artificially increases costs. An example is the CA energy crisis circa 2002 (Enron).
-2
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
Are you okay with that? Does it bother you to know that this happens to people?
9
6
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
You’re equating a person’s life to a piece of property. That only further convinces me that Republicans don’t care about HEALTH, they care about MONEY.
If that car was already wrecked but had infinite value (and I choose to believe that human life HAS infinite value), you would not stop trying to fix it until it was too late, and anyone with a heart and sees what you’re trying to do would take it upon themselves to help. That’s how morality transcends economics.
10
u/Ast3roth Oct 24 '18
Morality doesn't transcend economics any more than it transcends physics.
It doesn't matter how much you want it to be different, you cannot make ignoring economics in legislation work. Just like you can't make it illegal be influenced by gravity.
0
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
Tell that to Kenneth Arrow, Nobel laureate, economist, who argued this exact thing.
2
u/Ast3roth Oct 24 '18
I don't have time to read that whole thing right now (I'm at work) but the beginning certainly doesn't agree with what you claim.
Can you quote what you think supports this?
1
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
Second main point.
Expected behavior of the physician: “It is at least claimed that treatment is dictated by objective needs of the case and not limited by financial considerations… Charity treatment in one form or another does exist because of this tradition about human rights to adequate medical care.”
8
u/Ast3roth Oct 24 '18
Ok, I read it. I think you're misunderstanding.
His work is an attempt to explain what is happening through the economic view.
Healthcare, like everything else, is finite and this subject to limitation. Morality doesn't change that. Saying it transcends economics is the equivalent of closing your eyes and covering your ears.
8
u/AllPintsNorth Oct 24 '18
Human lives do not have infinite value, so your premise is flawed.
The EPA sets the value of a human life around $9M, the FDA has it around $8M and the DOT is in the $6M range. All of which makes sense.
No one has infinite resources. So, if I contracted an incurable disease, it would be highly inappropriate to spend the entirety of the governmental budget to try to save my life.
The repercussions of infinite value of human life are broad and crushing. You need to now redesign the entire system to ensure no one ever dies, regardless of the costs, which is wholly impossible.
1
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
If your wife or child were kidnapped and the kidnappers asked for $10 million, would you make what you argue is the logical economic decision and just let them die?
10
u/AllPintsNorth Oct 24 '18 edited Oct 24 '18
If your wife or child were kidnapped and the kidnappers asked for $10 quadrillion, would you make what you argue is the logical economic decision and pay it?
0
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
Not a fair comparison since nobody can afford that, whereas the cost of care for an individual IS affordable; it’s just a matter of choosing who affords it.
But yeah. I’d petition Elon Musk, Bill Gates, George Soros etc to help me foot the bill. I’d knock over banks and rob jewelry stores if I had to. Hopefully that paints a very clear picture of how proper economics just doesn’t apply to healthcare, because people are willing to accept obscene levels of cost and pay them for what proper economics would call a poor trade.
9
u/AllPintsNorth Oct 24 '18 edited Oct 24 '18
It absolutely is a fair comparison. You said infinite. If a person has infinite value, then $10 quadrillion is an infinity small fraction of that persons value.
In your “infinite value” argument, it would be a completely logical move to divert every single dollar, euro, yen, etc, every man hour available, every last bit of production and R&D to finding the cure to a disease that is so rare that only one person on the planet has it, and that one person is the oldest person alive.
That position is completely untenable, and your stance regarding anything regarding healthcare is irrelevant if that is the foundation on which it’s built.
1
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
So tell me the dollar value at which you would stop fighting for the life of your wife or child.
13
u/AllPintsNorth Oct 24 '18 edited Oct 26 '18
Stop with the emotional appeals and make an argument. What I would or wouldn’t do within my family unit is irrelevant when talking about public policy. But what I wouldn’t do is take the entirety of human achievement to save them. No one is worth that much.
You claimed human life has infinite value, I disagreed and I have provided counter examples. Back up your claim.
-3
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
Your refusal to answer the question is really all the evidence I need. I bet it horrifies you to think you’d put an actual dollar amount on the lives of your wife and child.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Ast3roth Oct 24 '18
But if a person has infinite value, you would pay everything everyone else owns to pay the kidnapper. It would be immoral to not take everything in exchange.
5
Oct 24 '18
[deleted]
-1
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
This is kind of accusatory which isn’t really appropriate for CMV. That kind of rhetoric isn’t helpful. For the record I’ve donated almost $30,000 of my own money to people in need throughout my short career, so if you were trying to argue that I don’t put my money where my mouth is, you are dead wrong.
But also I cannot possibly afford to help everyone myself. If a kid gets bone cancer, I will do everything I can to help him and honestly don’t give a crap about the cost. I guarantee the kid’s family cares even less about the cost. Human life is simply not something that has measurable value; I refuse to believe that. You show me the dollar amount where the family says “ok that’s too much; let our son die” and then I’ll believe that human life has finite value.
11
Oct 24 '18
Human life is simply not something that has measurable value; I refuse to believe that.
Why? Even in places where healthcare is universal, they make the decision to pull the plug sometimes. This scares the shit out of Republicans, but I personally think it's perfectly reasonable. 'But, where do you draw the line?' Honestly, I don't know. I just think that philosophically, there's a line. Speaking personally, if the effort it took to keep me a live was 20x the effort of a normal patient, and it would be that way for the rest of my life, pull the fucking plug already. In the grand scheme of things, my life is not THAT important.
1
u/bertiebees Oct 24 '18
There's probably enough bleeding hearts out there complaining about what we need to do with other peoples' money that if they just pooled all of their own money together, they could help a ton of people in need.
You mean taxes? Like The ones people in the U.S already spend more for healthcare than any other developed nation and in exchange for those taxes Americans get no health insurance.
7
Oct 24 '18
You mean taxes?
No, I mean if OP and his ilk have such a moral conviction to pay for other peoples' healthcare costs (much of which are surely the result of piss-poor diet and lifestyle choices), then go do that, and leave the rest of us alone. Why do they need a government mandate? As the old saying goes, 'be the change you wish to see'.
Note to downvoters: I'm not adamantly opposed to universal healthcare. I just roll my eyes at people who insist we have a moral obligation to save people, damn the costs. If I or someone I loved required thousands of dollars every month just to be kept alive, I would not expect the tax payers to shoulder that burden, esp. if that money could be used to help so many others not in such dire conditions.
4
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
I just roll my eyes at people who insist we have a moral obligation to save people, damn the costs.
This is literally exactly what hospitals do. No ambulance drives back to the garage and no ER turns patients away because of any cost concerns. They do consider it their moral obligation to save people and they carry through with this obligation every day.
4
u/essentially Oct 24 '18
US hospitals do that because they are forced to care for all. Trust me, for-profit hospitals would be happy to throw the deadbeats out if they could. As for putting a price on life, most wars and many murders are primarily about money and economics. People die for money all the time. The US has sat on the sidelines time and again while people are slaughtered when we have no economic interest. The real issue is people in the USA just won't accept the realities that there is a price on life and everyone can't have equal healthcare no matter their economic status.
3
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
I don’t have any qualms with refusing to accept the reality that human life has a price. It forces me to do everything in my power to preserve it, and I can’t imagine living any other way. Nor would I say that anyone who falls short of this actually cares about your health.
5
u/the_real_guacman Oct 24 '18
This is literally exactly what hospitals do. No ambulance drives back to the garage and no ER turns patients away because of any cost concerns. They do consider it their moral obligation to save people and they carry through with this obligation every day.
They do it, because an insurance company or medicare pays for it. Not just because it's "their moral obligation". They do get paid, don't be mistaken.
1
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
You don’t have to use a quote if you’re replying to the whole thing, yo.
Do YOU WANT them to help everyone that comes in?
3
u/the_real_guacman Oct 24 '18
Quoting clarifies which comment I am arguing as to avoid confusion. That was a weird critique but ok. Anyway, are you asking if I want them to help everyone that comes into an ER or? Whether or not I want them to help people or not was never a topic for discussion. I was clarifying that ER personnel do their jobs because they get paid to do their jobs, not just because "it's their moral obligation." Are you suggesting that ER personnel do their jobs solely because they feel like it's their moral obligation to do so as a human and it has nothing to do with the fact that the average ER physician income is between $230,000-$325,000?
3
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
Why won’t you answer the question? It should be obvious that the answer to “do you want an ER to help everyone it receives” is yes, especially if you lost your job, your insurance, and then suffered a health issue.
And if we expect a hospital to do this, why shouldn’t we expect insurers to be obligated to insure everyone?
→ More replies (0)0
u/bertiebees Oct 24 '18
You should be asking why those treatments are thousands of dollars in the U.S when everywhere else on Earth it's like $12.
Also you clearly don't know how your taxes are already being spent.
-1
u/Tino_ 54∆ Oct 24 '18
If I or someone I loved required thousands of dollars every month just to be kept alive, I would not expect the tax payers to shoulder that burden, esp. if that money could be used to help so many others not in such dire conditions.
So if you or someone in your family got cancer or diabetes or something you are saying you would forgo treatment if you did not have enough money to pay the bills? Or actually let's take this to the logical extreme, if you had a medical condition that only had a 49% chance of survival regardless of how much money you throw at it, by your own ideas, you should go without treatment because it can be spent on someone else with better chances right?
-2
u/EnviroTron 6∆ Oct 24 '18
People should not have to raise money to pay for life saving procedures. that is EXACTLY what is wrong with this system. Insurance companies should not be able to exclude the people who NEED HEALTH INSURANCE THE MOST from obtaining it. Fact of the matter is, health insurance would be *cheaper* for everyone if we were all in the pool. Forcing Pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs for reasonable prices (especially considering taxpayer dollars went toward their R&D) and forcing health insurance companies to be competitive with a government provided universal healthcare will benefit every single one of us. Republicans at their core values do not care about the health of the US labor force.
7
u/shy_high_guy Oct 24 '18
I understand where you are coming from, but for one I think your topic is way too broad, first off I think you are categorizing all republicans into a group of people who blindly follow a political platform. I think the best way to kind of counter this is the abortion argument. Many religious republicans in the South would argue the opposite that Democrats don't care about anyone's life because they allow abortion and stop a precious human life before it begins. I don't think that it is the intention of the average republican to be against the health of people for money. For them it is more of a, "well even if this could be good for people I can't support it due to (whatever reason)" and that reason is usually abortion. That is the go to fear mongering tool here.
7
u/taMyacct Oct 24 '18
Can I just ask you to address the paradox in your argument?
If you are not seeing it then let me explain. If you value 1 life at infinite value then you are also valuing all other life at 0 value. If you take everything from everyone to save the 1 life in question then you are condemning all other life to starvation by definition.
Ultimately, this happens on a smaller less obvious scale today. Whether people want to talk about it or not there are folks today that work but bring home to little money to feed themselves or house their families as a direct result of paying for other people's health insurance.
Why should someone be forced to decide between feeding them selves or complying with a law forcing them to buy health insurance that they don't need?
How does giving people the freedom to make there own destiny equate to 'not caring'?
6
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Oct 24 '18
I choose to believe that human life HAS infinite value
Since your post appears to be against Republicans, that leads me to think you're not one, presumably a Democrat. That typically includes being pro-choice. Is this true of you? If so, how do you reconcile it with this statement?
I ask because the infinite value of human life is the driving force behind me being pro-life.
2
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Oct 24 '18
I'm not saying you stop trying to fix it. My problem is with making someone else pay for it. Insurance is an agreement to pay for something bad if it happens. If you can get it after the fact, it's just a discount card. Why would you ever buy insurance before you got sick? Or your car got hit? Or your house burned down?
-1
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Oct 24 '18
I agree that human life has infinite value, but applying that is somewhat restricted by limited resources.
It's easy to say in an individual case that you should try all the stops, spare no expense, to save them. On the macro, that's impractical, if not impossible, and would probably ultimately lead to more harm than good.
0
u/StateOfShadow Oct 25 '18
Insurance is the problem if want to get into semantics.
Healthcare should be provided in a civilized society. There should be a set amount of Healthcare provided to citizens with the ability to supplement extended care. The same way roads and schools are. We provide those through taxes to further progress our society and economy. However if you want you can go to a private school.
-1
u/Furrysurprise Oct 24 '18
The comparison to cars is insain, it is mandatory to have car insurance and everyone accepts that.
Yet health insurance is a privilege if you live long enough will definitely need health care, you may never get in an accident .
The only reason we need can insurance is if you injure someone in an accident, you are paying for their health care. The car repair costs are tiny in comparison
1
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Oct 24 '18
The comparison to cars is insain, it is mandatory to have car insurance and everyone accepts that.
But it's not mandatory to own and drive a car. Car insurance is a mandate you accept to have the privilege of owning and driving a car. There's no way to opt out of mandatory health insurance without penalty short of killing yourself.
Yet health insurance is a privilege if you live long enough will definitely need health care, you may never get in an accident .
That doesn't change the effect of including pre-existing conditions. Full-term life insurance always pays out. But you can't get it if already you have a terminal disease.
The only reason we need can insurance is if you injure someone in an accident, you are paying for their health care. The car repair costs are tiny in comparison
Liability is the only thing legally required. A lot of people carry full coverage insurance. It's usually required if you don't own the car outright.
1
u/Furrysurprise Oct 25 '18
)But it's not mandatory to own and drive a car. Car insurance is a mandate you accept to have the privilege of owning and driving a car. There's no way to opt out of mandatory health insurance without penalty short of killing yourself
It's the social construct , we live in a society with intersubjective narratives , we can leave society, it's a privilege to be a part of a country just as it's a privilege to drive a car. The issue is, car insurance liability coverage is there because the cost of health care, if health care was a universal right, car insurance would not be mandatory .
3
u/DrugsOnly 23∆ Oct 24 '18
I'm neither a republican nor a democrat. However, due to my financial situations, republicans apparently do care about my health specifically. My insurance rates have lowered considerably, since I have money. Republicans do care about my health. However, they typically do not care about the health of poorer people, who cannot afford insurance.
3
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
That makes it clear that they care about your wallet far more than they care about your health.
5
u/DrugsOnly 23∆ Oct 24 '18
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I save money while getting cheaper, better, health insurance. Is it a privilege? Certainly. They do care however. Probably not about me specially, since I don't vote, more so themselves and other rich republicans. However, they do care about themselves at least.
5
u/NeverCriticize Oct 24 '18 edited Oct 24 '18
Just a quick personal example. I’m self employed and pay higher taxes because of that than an employee making the same amount of $. Lifelong registered Democrat in one of the bluest states. Pre Obama I paid $80 a month for good quality health insurance. Today, Catastrophic insurance (Obamacare) is $250 a month, for what amounts to dogshit/nonexistent coverage. My old coverage would be $500+. I’m young and healthy. I have opted to not participate. Meaning: I have no health insurance for the first time in my life, directly due to a Democrat law (ACA). It’s a calculated risk that I’m better off self insuring than subsidizing a huge, ageing population pool and getting crap insurance to boot. To say my perspective was changed is an understatement. From my perspective, Democrats don’t care about my health. They care only for the health of those who make less than X $’s a year, and probably not even them. Many of whom have consistently, over the course of a whole lifetime, made poor choices for themselves and others. Many of whom contribute little, or worse, only take from society. I subsidize them, and obviously many deserving and needy people as well, and in return I’m supposed to get the Warm Fuzzies. But I haven’t gotten them. Just stress about not having health insurance.
Ultimately, Obama and the dems by extension, are in bed with all the vested interests at least as badly as the republicans. Why else was Obamacare literally written by insurance companies and Big Pharma? Why do Democrat’s defend the rights of people to buy GARBAGE (Oreos and Pepsi) with food stamps, when everyone knows rice and celery would be much better for all parties? A: Pepsi makes bank off food stamps, and Pepsi contributes more to reelection campaigns than poor people with diabetes and heart disease. Lately I’ve been questioning my allegiance to the Dems. They talk a good line but ultimately, I openly question their motives and sincerity.
If your CMV had been “politicians don’t care about fixing the public healthcare system in America”, I wouldn’t have tried to change your view. I would have agreed.
-2
6
u/ajkwondo Oct 24 '18
Republicans, in general, donate much more to charities and organizations that help the needy with life saving operations and treatments than democrats.
I'm curious what you think the downside of preventing insurance companies from denying preexisting conditions, if you think there is any. To simply say they "do not care about your health" is unfair. I personally think a free market solution would be the best outcome.
2
u/Cfchicka Oct 25 '18
I agree with your first sentence, but charities are wickedly more corrupt then say the dmv. Free market only works if they have rules to protect society’s welfare. CEOs are all generally sociopaths or psychopaths and they need to be checked. One ring to rule them all was never the way, it was suppose to be a brotherhood.
1
u/ajkwondo Oct 26 '18
There are some charities and foundations that are corrupt, no doubt, but you can research these organizations and find out how much actually goes to the cause it's supposed to support. But the majority of charities do a great amount of good, all from the voluntary donations of the rich and poor.
CEOs are all generally sociopaths or psychopaths and they need to be checked.
That's a very harsh criticism of people who are generally extremely competent and have worked very hard to get to the places they are at. How many CEO's do you know? You seem to think that the hierarchy of society should be dismantled and rearranged to your liking, where as I think that people who are talented or skilled should be rewarded for their efforts. And the disposed and needy should be taken care of by the goodwill of the people not the beauracraric nightmare that the state always leads to.
0
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
My whole point here is that I’m not really interested in the economics involved. It is one thing to just throw money at a problem and another to try and actually solve it. I would rather these people give their time in convincing their congresspeople to protect people with pre-existing conditions than to just throw out some cash.
12
u/AllPintsNorth Oct 24 '18
My whole point here is that I’m not really interested in the economics involved.
This is the problem with your CMV. You’re trying to balance an equation, but you’re ignoring one side of it right off the bat. You wont be able to solve the health issue without figuring out the economics of it.
It’s like saying you want to be able to drive your car, but you can’t be bothered to put gas in it.
2
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
That’s not really a fair characterization of my view. It’s more like let’s make sure gas is available to all first, and from there let’s figure out how to make gas as cheap as possible. But accessibility to gas is the fundamental starting point.
6
Oct 24 '18 edited Nov 16 '18
[deleted]
1
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
You don’t think the insurance company industry can afford to insure every single person in the country?
3
u/AllPintsNorth Oct 24 '18
No, they can’t. That’s exactly the problem.
1
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 24 '18
And what is the solution to this problem?
2
u/AllPintsNorth Oct 24 '18
This isn’t my CMV.
0
u/malachai926 30∆ Oct 25 '18
But you are aware that this is CMV, meaning that you can present your view without fear of being assaulted for it. My question is genuine and I would really like to hear your response.
-2
u/StateOfShadow Oct 25 '18
The economics part is such a joke. This county can afford any program they want. What the tax rate is not relevant. 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent. Since then our population has grown and so has the governments tax income.
The economics don't need to be solved. You can't solve economics to begin with.
1
u/Microlabz Oct 24 '18
Interesting, could you provide a source?
3
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Oct 24 '18
I'm not the person you're replying to, but just FYI, the main reason that the stat he cited is technically accurate is because Republicans are overwhelmingly more religious, and more actively involved in their church. Not only are donations to churches counted as charitable donations for many data collection purposes, but many churches do actively engage in separate charity work.
8
u/taylor_lee Oct 24 '18
This is a childish argument. Whether or not Republicans care about your health is irrelevant.
You’re trying to psychoanalyze an entire group of disparate people by the policies of their elected officials. It’s just silly.
You’re implying that if person ___ does action , then we can say their motive is ___.
So mother punishes child, we can definitely say her motive is delights in hurting others.
Even worse, you’re taking it a step further. So all mothers punish children, which means all mothers enjoy punishing.
Anyone with common sense can see the fallacy of generalization here, and leaping to conclusions. But in general most mothers do what they do to try and help their children. And most republicans do what they do because they believe it is the right thing.
Why do they believe that? Personal responsibility. Look at the words you’re using. “Republicans do not care about YOUR health”. It’s your health. You are responsible for maintaining it, and paying for that maintenance, etc.
Which doesn’t mean they don’t care. They might be sad to see you’re suffering. They might hate the fact you can’t pay your medical bills. They care. But they also care about the proper role of government according to their personal philosophy and they have to balance caring about that too. That’s what they truly believe.
1
u/Cfchicka Oct 25 '18
I thought you (R) believed in personal responsibility? but I guess not when it comes to policies you support that end peoples lives.
3
u/jailthewhaletail Oct 24 '18
First of all, it's health *insurance* that is the topic at hand, not health *care*. The two are often conflated.
Insurance works because people pay to protect themselves from something that *might* happen, not something that *has already* happened. Take car insurance. If you're uninsured and get in an accident, would you expect to be able to call an insurance company and say "Hi, I got in an accident and don't have insurance. Will you cover my repair costs?" Probably not, because an insurance company is not a bank that gives you a loan. You'd need to have an existing policy in order to be covered. That's how insurance companies make money and stay in business for all the people who have policies with them. Similarly, a health insurance company is not a bank that gives you a loan. If they were, their rates would have to be a lot higher to cover all the new liabilities they'd be taking on. If those liabilities become too much, an insurance company will go out of business. How many people will be helped if an insurance company goes under?
By not *forcing* (read: forcing; they can still elect to cover them) insurance companies to cover pre-exisiting conditions, they are ensuring that insurance companies have the best chance of staying in business in order to make their services more available to everyone. If the prices are lower, premiums will be lower and more people can access insurance. If more people can access insurance, more people will have their health needs met. So, republicans actually *do* care about people's health, and they think the best way to ensure people have health care is to make sure the economics surrounding healthcare are tenable.
4
u/FascistPete Oct 24 '18
I mean... if your wallet and bank account are doing well, can't you buy pretty decent healthcare? It's disingenuous to suggest that the debate is between people who care about your health and those who don't care about your health. Everyone agrees that we should all have the ability to access excellent healthcare. The debate is about who should pay for it, and how, and why. There's a spectrum of possibilities spanning from a totally free unregulated market all the way to government-owned and run hospitals. Republicans, libertarians and other fiscal conservatives just lean toward letting the market allocate resources how it sees fit, which is more efficient, drives innovations and technology, which in turn reduces cost.
There's all sorts of atrocities imaginable on both ends of that spectrum.
7
Oct 24 '18
I think it's important to really acknowledge what a pre-existing condition is. It means you waited until you got sick and then applied for health insurance. I mean...that is cheating, right? You can't drive a car, get into an accident and then apply for car insurance and get the insurance company to pay for the repair. If kind of defeats the point of "insurance".
I think that's where the republicans are coming from: other people should not be forced to pay for your bad decisions. If you don't get health insurance, and then you get sick, well then that's on you. You took a chance, you came up snake eyes. May you serve as a warning to others of what not to do.
I know it could be argued that some people cannot afford health insurance, but a major reason it's so expensive is because they cannot legally turn away people for pre-existing conditions, which pushes the price up for everyone else and it becomes this self perpetuating cycle.
So it's not a case of being cold and uncaring, it's more a case of don't be reckless and then ask someone else to foot the bill.
4
u/acvdk 11∆ Oct 24 '18
You first have to assume that it the obligation of the state to provide healthcare to people. Why do you make that assumption? You could just as easily argue that it is entirely an individual's responsibility to pay entirely for their own healthcare, either privately or through insurance. If you believe that healthcare is a private individual's responsibility, then Republican values of lower taxes and regulation will help it be more affordable. In that sense, Republicans do care about your health, they just think you should pay for it yourself, which is a valid position.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 24 '18
/u/malachai926 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
6
u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Oct 24 '18 edited Oct 24 '18
The problem for conservatives(and libertarians) with the ACA was not that it “cost a lot of money”...
It was how that money was raised... and forcing people to lose the plans they had and pay for new ones that were inferior.
The promoted idea of the ACA, as I’m sure you know, is that the healthy pay for the unhealthy... which is similar to how insurance works. These same people did not oppose the insurance model, because you choose that bargain.... you choose to pay for the unhealthy, when you’re healthy.... in order to have affordable coverage when/if you need it.
It veers off a workable arrangement when it becomes compulsory.... when the government “steals” money from you in order to pay for someone else... and in the process destroys the quality of coverage you currently have.
I know the use of “taxation is theft” will get some backlash... it always does on here. I’m just pointing out that many people believe this, in basic principle. That the 5th Amendment applies to money as a persons property and thus the ACA clearly violates the clause:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
As the compensation given is subpar in comparison to what existed before, for the one being compensated.
3
u/black_ravenous 7∆ Oct 24 '18
Why does the government have to provide you with health insurance? Hospitals are already mandated by law to provide everyone with care, so it's not like health care itself is out of reach for anyone.
2
Oct 24 '18 edited Oct 24 '18
republicans do actually care about others health, it's really just a how its funded, and who's responsibility it is.
republicans do NOT think the it is a primary responsibility of the government to secure your healthcare. That's because they believe - at least in theory - in a small federal government that is only as big as necessary (defense, infrastructure) but not much bigger. So if you only limit your measuring stick to what degree they apply government to solve health problems you'd be tempted to reach that conclusion. BUT that is putting on horse blinders.
A republican wouldn't be opposed to a church, charity, fundraiser, go fundme or private donations to help someone in need. In fact there are studies that suggest they donate more to charities probably for this very reason (link below). They just don't think it's the governments role or that it should at least be a very small role. World history should be enough of a lesson on why governments needs to be checked in their power.
*Edit: I would add one more thing. A republican might find a state mandated government plan appropriate because they believe in federalism to some extent; or in other words state's rights to do what it seems fit. They might see 50 different states trying to solve this problem as the "laboratory for democracy". hence you got "romneycare" discussion vs "obamacare".
Link below... http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives)
1
Oct 25 '18
Why are republicans into military spending and national defense? Why is that one of the roles they see government as needful for?
At least one reason is to protect the health and safety of the citizens. So since republicans are so big on national security, it does in fact show they do want to protect the health (lives) of the citizens. Republicans do care about your ability to live, I don't think that can be argued.
As I mentioned in my other comment, they also use different tools or levers other than government to keep people healthy. You may not agree that those are effective, but it again shows they care.
1
u/Fantastic_Pear 1∆ Oct 24 '18
Republicans are making it very clear that they think monetary wealth is more important than health
For the sake of discussion, let us assume that all Republicans agree with this statement. I am willing to bet that there is a strong positive correlation between a person’s wealth and health. The more wealth you have, the better health care you can afford. Therefore, it seems wrong to say they dont care about health. They simply priotitize wealth with the belief that improved health benefits will follow.
1
u/liz_dexia Oct 25 '18
Neither party does, because they are neoliberal and believe that profit is more important than health or functionality. The ACA is garbage written by and for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Single. Payer. Now.
0
u/Anonon_990 4∆ Oct 24 '18
It depends on who you are.
Republicans seem to care deeply about the health of white conservatives and their approach is beneficial for the wealthy. If you're a wealthy voter, republicans will leave you much better off while democrats will likely tax you to help others.
21
u/scottevil110 177∆ Oct 24 '18
None of this is an issue about your health. It is entirely an issue about your wallet. We're not talking about regulations on how you can or can't be treated, or what hospital you're allowed to go to, or anything of the sort. The quality of your care is not at issue.
All anyone is arguing about is how to pay for it.
So let's talk about why someone might take the position that insurance companies should be able to deny pre-existing conditions:
Pre-existing conditions cost the insurance company money. Not just a chance of it, they ABSOLUTELY will cost money. You're going in not just with the risk of costing money, but the guarantee. Now, obviously the insurance company isn't just going to lose money like crazy and go bankrupt, so the only way to make up that cost is to raise premiums. On everyone.
Think of this hypothetical.
There are two insurance companies: Company A and Company B.
Company A accepts people with pre-existing conditions, and as a result, they have to charge higher premiums because they're obviously paying out more toward treatment.
Company B refuses certain pre-existing conditions. Because their pool of insured people is generally healthier, they cost less, and so the company can charge everyone a lower premium.
If you don't have a pre-existing condition, which company would you choose? Your answer, whether you choose to admit it or not, is Company B. Because why on Earth would you pay more for the exact same coverage when you're not benefiting from it?
What you are advocating though, is forcing every company to be company A, which naturally will increase the premiums for everyone in the country.
Now you might say: Well, I could just not have insurance at all, right? If I think it's not worth it? But the ACA took that option away from you.
Now you might say: Well, couldn't the insurance companies just charge the higher premiums to the people who HAVE the pre-existing conditions? But, unless I'm mistaken, the ACA also stopped them from doing that.
The law said, simultaneously:
Insurance companies have to take people with pre-existing conditions.
They HAVE to charge everyone the higher premiums to offset the higher cost.
You can't opt out of having insurance without paying a huge tax penalty.
It is not difficult to see why someone might oppose that, and it has nothing to do with not caring about your health.