Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why NO Republican would EVER vote for HCR

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:23 AM
Original message
Why NO Republican would EVER vote for HCR
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 09:25 AM by berni_mccoy
There is one fundamental keystone to health care reform: No one should be denied healthcare because they have a pre-existing condition.

There are literally millions of Americans who cannot get health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition. And as a result, they cannot afford to go to the doctor to be treated.

Why do Insurance companies reject people with pre-existing conditions? The answer is simple: a person with pre-existing conditions costs more than their premium would cover. They would eat into the profits of the Health Insurance companies. If Insurance companies could find a way to make money insuring people with pre-existing conditions, they would have done so long ago. Instead, they drop these people as fast as they can using rescission and annual and lifetime caps. And these people with pre-existing conditions are the most vulnerable. They are the ones most likely to die if they do not have their illness treated.

Even Republicans agree (or at least, they'll openly admit) that the practice of excluding people because of pre-exisitng conditions, and such evil practices as rescission and spending caps, are wrong. But even if this was all the Health Care Reform Bill was about, forget the Public Option and Exchanges for a second, forget the competition part for a moment. If all the HCR Bill was to cover people with pre-existing conditions, not a single Republican would vote for it. And the reason is because the Insurance companies won't stand for it.

This is what the battle is about. It is about taking a power of authority over life and death out of the hands of the Insurance Companies. If the Insurance companies lose, they will lose profit. If we the people lose, people will die. It is this simple. Republicans are not voting for the people. They are voting for profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. Insurance = Serfdom...
I'm sure most of us know people who hate their job but the only reason they stay is for the insurance. This isn't some fluke, but a trap that allows employers to have a large amount of control over the lives of their employees...making many stay at jobs where they are overworked and underpaid simply cause they need the insurance.

There won't be any true reform until people are allowed to self-insure...be it privately or in a govermnet program. Insurance shouldn't be a condition of employment but a true benefit...and allow a person to shop for a better policy (which the employers contribution can be applied to) if they so choose.

Of course the rushpublicans hate this concept cause their buddies at the Chamber of Commerce wouldn't stand for it. They "talk" reform, but as has been pointed out too many times, if they were serious, why didn't they do anything (other than give big pharma a big wet kiss with the "prescription drug benefit" scam) when they were in power.

But the corporate media already has framed the failure of health care as being Democrats not "compromising" with the GOOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I respectfully disagree. Health Insurance as it exists is worse...
Health Insurance is a profit driven enterprise that does not even have to abide by normal market competition. Health Insurance as implemented in other countries is not evil and serves a purpose. People cannot "self insure" unless they are very wealthy. People with medical conditions have not a chance in hell of being able to afford care. By enforcing everyone to pool a periodic premium, you protect everyone from illness and/or poverty. This is social insurance and it is the same type of "insurance" as Social Security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Part & Parcel...
All insurance is profit driven...be it home insurance or auto...the question is more about how much profit and the quality of service available. In fairness, the costs have been driven up by several factors that are passed along. Medical malpractice premiums have been climbing since the 80s...vast amounts spent in valid as well as frivolous lawsuits that affect all physicians and health care providers that have been passed along to the "consumer". My father was a physician and we were involved in several "cattle calls" where every doctor who saw patient was cited...we were dropped from these suits, but it still cost us in time and legal expenses as well as resulting in higher malpractice premiums even though my father was never found negligent. People here dismiss this factor (mostly cause it is a GOOP talking point, but it's also a fact of life for many physicians...driving many doctors to limit their practices or climb into the safety of a network that protects them from some of these problems, but their malpractice premiums remain high.

No people can't self insure these days, but I can recall a time when I had a choice of plans...those options vanished in the late 80s. I'm very cynical of a strictly government-run program because you're trading on set of gatekeepers for another...and, sadly, there's been precious little in the "healthcare reform" that addresses the factors of rising costs...only to try to counteract them with tax subsidies or those dreaded mandates.

Creating competition between government and private insurance will also create competition. Too many think that healtchare is a right and thus it should be free to all. This is unrealistic. No matter what's done...be it single payer, public option or expanding medicare, without addressing what has cause prices to rise, we'll either face a poorly funded public system or have to cut other programs or find other backdoor taxes to make up the shortfall.

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well said.
I don't agree that a mandate is wrong. If we were to go the route of Single Payer, you are effectively employing mandated insurance from a single source. That being said, I pretty much agree with your point. Rising costs have to be addressed and perhaps it is disagreement of what is driving those costs that is at the heart of the divisions within the part and among the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. is someone from the insurance industry unreccing this? why else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. Afternoon kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC