House passes "repeal and replace"

I know it’s not a popular idea (or at least opposition to it has been vocal) but I’m not inclined to dismiss it outright, or try to ban insurance companies from offering to pay for care above and beyond what the single-payer system covers to any particular Canadian willing to buy it.

Bricker,

I’ve repeatedly asked you to describe a healthcare system, at the state or federal level, that you would support. You’ve declined to do so thus far. Instead you’ve stood on point of law and insisted on pedantically schooling everyone on the separation of roles of state and fed governments.

Your unwillingness to address the question asked leads me (and others, it seems) to conclude you’re not interested in a fruitful debate about the merits of a comprehensive healthcare system. I will refrain from speculating on your motives because you’ll deny them, as you have before, objecting - “I said no such thing!”. Of course you haven’t. You’ve stubbornly & intentionally (I believe) refused to elucidate your position. Instead choosing to further obfuscate.

Despite this, I ask you again:

  1. In the effort to achieve a more just society, what kind of healthcare system should be established to ensure a comprehensive level of care for its constituents, and, 2) What role should government play in reaching that objective?

Why do you pose to him a question from the Left, “more just society”? It is not his clear motivation.

You will not get any productive answer from him starting from your preferences.

You will be bettter if you start from a point that is not presuming your Left side presuppositions.

My liberal position is not a secret, however, it’s my understanding that Bricker is primarily interested in justice and The Law. So, given his position that the ACA was federal over-reach, I’m asking for his point of view of how his version of a “more just society” would address healthcare of its citizens.

That’s what I’m asking, at least in the context of states versus the federal government. What do we lose, if we lose that distinction?

TRADITION!! b

It’s interesting that the moment you get away from arguing the role of federal government, you argue that there must be calculations, and that they must necessarily be cold-blooded enough to disregard the needs of an orphan.

In fact we do make such calculations, and nothing requires them to be cold-blooded. In your example, we legislate to mitigate the risks and damages of private auto operation. Drivers are required to be licensed and carry liability insurance (heaven forfend, an individual mandate?) There are even mandatory safety inspections in some states. There is a plethora of regulations governing safe driving practices. And should Cindy Lou’s mother die, she can draw federal SSI and medicaid if all else fails.

It’s a mystery to me why conservatives keep invoking car ownership as a conservative ideal of smart regulation. It’s a classic example of a life necessity that carries risks and rewards, and we’ve legislated all sorts of solutions to manage that tradeoff.

Republicans:
[ul]
[li]Control the US House of Representatives[/li][li]Control the US Senate[/li][li]Control the White House (eh, this one’s questionable, but he’s certainly not a liberal)[/li][li]Control both legislative chambers in 32 states[/li][li]Control the governor’s office in 33 states[/li][/ul]

What would those numbers look like if conservatives “persuaded others that they’re not evil?”

A lot of questions. What comprises UHC? How is it structured, who or what administrates? How to collect necessary revenue and control expenses?

Vermont ran into problems because of its broad mission statement at the outset, later realizing that its vision wasn’t affordable.

Really? Are you sure?

Are you sure there wasn’t a post or two back here where I said I thought state-run healthcare systems would be fine, or multi-state, or even a federal public option (as opposed to a mandate)? I didn’t do any of those?

In fact, I contend you’re refusing to read what I write:

In this thread, more than once, I have expressed approval for:

[ul]
[li]State-based control of healthcare, with mandates[/li][li]Multi-state compacts, with mandates[/li][li]Federal public option plan with no mandate[/li][li]Federal funding to assist state plans[/li][/ul]

Did you not read any of those posts?

Do you believe they exist? Do I need to link to them?

In your opinion, how many times do I need to repeat something before it’s fair to say to you, “You should have read it?”

A while ago, I asked you to summarize my position, and it offended you – yet you could not do so accurately. I made a good-faith attempt to summarize your position. You never commented on its accuracy.

Was my summary of your view accurate?

How about until you actually answer the question that is being asked? Can you describe how a state-run system would actually work(if it can at all)? I would support million dollar salaries for everyone that didn’t cause massive inflation, but I wouldn’t present it as a real possibility because I know that it just wouldn’t work.

I read the reply of Leaper and when he says “others” there is no mention if they are a majority or a minority. In context he is referring more to the ones that are not members of your club.

In any case, I can say that when the leadership is bad (and issues related to science that affects policies like evolution or climate change demonstrate that with 3rd party authority) most of the Republicans are clearly being misled and vote accordingly. That was noted before BTW.

Yes, I’m sure he was. And my comment was intended to highlight the fact that no matter how stalwart the SDMB community is, the general public doesn’t seem to regard the belief that conservatives are evil as a great hindrance to electing Republicans, as evidenced by the ascendancy of Republican control of state and federal government.

For this reason, I was suggesting that when Leaper said, “If conservatives, especially those in government, want to persuade others that they’re not evil…” this was not really a problem that affected Republicans’ electoral success.

Do you mean this?:

I’m sorry, I meant to reply but got distracted and the conversation moved on quickly.

Sure, if by “federalism” you mean (as we discussed) enumerated federal powers vs. plenary state powers, then yes, I agree with the above. I think a more centralized federal government policy with respect to healthcare (UHC) would yield far better results on the whole.

I asked for a summary. You’ve provided it. I thank you.

What makes state healthcare mandates preferable to federal healthcare mandates?

What material difference is there between federal and state mandated healthcare?

And you are missing here that a mistake is a mistake, even if millions go for it. (of course the caveat is that the Republican advantage is many times slight in many elections, what you see is the result of a “winner” take all system that we have. I can lead even pluralities out, just like in the last election) and the Situation can change very quickly.

Again, as I said early regarding how that majority can go to pot, look at the history of the Republican party in the 1930’s. The last time the Republicans elected a guy with little government experience, that got into trade wars that affected the economy, and used the law to enforce morality it did not work out after a few years.

OK.

Right now my healthcare is provided through Aetna. My employer and I each contribute money to Aetna to cover me and my family. Aetna also has struck deals with doctors and pharmacies to provide services to me at reduced rates, which they accept because of the volume of traffic they expect Aetna to send their way.

So I suggest several different alternatives. Here is one:

My state, Virginia, sets up Virginia CommonCare. (“Cause we’re a Commonwealth - get it? Get it?”) Virginia CommonCare strikes deals with doctors and pharmacies to provide services at reduced rates which they accept because of the volume of traffic they expect CommonCare to send their way.

Virginia law mandates that every Virginia resident buy health insurance, either through an employer plan such as Aetna, through CommonCare itself, or through another non-employer plan that provides minimum essential coverage (Tricare / Peace Corps / VA / Medicare, as examples).

Virginia can subsidize the plan to make the rates competitive, and directly subsidize low-income purchasers. As a matter of wise public policy the subsidy should not make the rates (for non-lower income purchasers) substantially lower than the private (“Aetna”) rates. If non-subsidized rates are lower than other options, that’s fine.

Virginia may find it financially viable to join Maryland, DC, and Delaware in a multistate CommonCare initiative. That would be good: the more the merrier.

The federal government may augment Virginia’s dollars spent to subsidize CommonCare with their dollars. The more the merrier.

Questions? Obviously one post cannot create the detailed description that legislation and implementing regulation does, but that’s my first idea.

You don’t get to define “mistake.”

You, and many of your fellow travelers, assume you can simply declare that your opponents are immoral, or sociopathic, or represent mistakes. No. That may be what you’re trying to prove. But you cannot simply assert it as a given.

  1. “Virginia CommonCare strikes deals with doctors and pharmacies to provide services at reduced rates which they accept because of the volume of traffic they expect CommonCare to send their way.” Unless it is mandatory, then it is entirely possible(I would even say probable) that doctors and pharmacies, with no previous history to work from, will not sign on without a guarantee that they will receive at least what they receive now.
  2. If this insurance company is not forced to accept preexisting conditions, then this is just a sham, and if this insurance company is forced to accept preexisting conditions, what is to stop them from saying “Screw you. We refuse to be the only ones to do this because the base is too small to support this. Byeee.”?
  3. Will the cost of this healthcare be based on what you earn, with governmental support for those who are destitute, or are you just talking about a fixed discount?