# I despise Trump but would vote for him over someone who wants to take my family's insurance away **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 17, 2019, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357 "2019-09-17T02:00:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Fentoine\_Lum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b77776/32.png) [@Fentoine\_Lum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fentoine_Lum)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/342 "2019-10-06T18:33:23Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > Having voted for every Democrat since Bill Clinton I would like to vote for another pro-business Democrat. Barack Obama was the gold standard with his JOBS Act and TPP. > > Now there is this: > > [https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/politics/poll-warren-sanders-health-insurance/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/politics/poll-warren-sanders-health-insurance/index.html) > > And Senator Warren claims she doesn’t know ANYONE who likes their health insurance? > > Kaiser: > > If successful in the primaries a Warren or Sanders would doom the Democratic Party in 2020. > > Why would a candidate wear such a millstone? How is voting for a “pro business democrat” any different than voting for that “other” party? That’s how ya lost last go 'round, and let’s not forget that Don failed on HIS healthcare promises. > [@](#): > > _“Why would a candidate wear such a millstone?”_ Maybe because a majority of the public supports a 21st century healthcare system like all the other advanced post-industrial nations enjoy. We pay more for much worse outcomes. While other advanced nations invest in their own societies with healthcare and education, we would rather engage in endless wars of aggression and occupation across the globe. It is the stiff of empires in decline throughout history; this economic cannibalization at home to project empire and militarism abroad. **Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System** [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064) **World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems** Some people fancy all health care debates to be a case of Canadian Health Care vs. American. Not so. According to the World Health Organization’s ranking of the world’s health systems, neither Canada nor the USA ranks in the top 25. Improving the Canadian Healthcare System does not mean we must emulate the American system, but it may mean that perhaps we can learn from countries that rank better than both Canada and the USA at keeping their citizens healthy. [http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/](http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/) \*\*\*\*U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World \*\*\*\*The U.S. health care system has been subject to heated debate over the past decade, but one thing that has remained consistent is the level of performance, which has been ranked as the worst among industrialized nations for the fifth time, according to the 2014 Commonwealth Fund survey 2014. The U.K. ranked best with Switzerland following a close second. The Commonwealth Fund report compares the U.S. with 10 other nations: France, Australia, Germany, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.K. were all judged to be superior based on various factors. These include quality of care, access to doctors and equity throughout the country. Results of the study rely on data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organization and interviews from physicians and patients. > **[U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World](https://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/)** > > The U.S. ranks lowest among 11 wealthy nations in terms of “efficiency, equity and outcomes" according to the Commonwealth Fund report **HOW BAD IS U.S. HEALTH CARE? AMONG HIGH-INCOME NATIONS, IT’S THE WORST, STUDY SAYS** As Republicans struggle to agree on a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, the Commonwealth Fund has rated the U.S. health care system as the worst among the 11 developed nations it analyzed as part of an evaluation conducted every three years. The think tank also rated the U.S. health care system as the worst-performing of the nations analyzed when the last evaluation was released in 2014. > **[U.S. Health Care System Rated the Worst](https://www.newsweek.com/united-states-health-care-rated-worst-637114)** > > The U.S. also spends far more on health care than any other nation. \*\*How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries? \*\*Bench-marking U.S. quality measures against those of similarly large and wealthy countries is one way to assess how successful the U.S. has been at improving care for its population, and to learn from systems that often produce better outcomes. The OECD has compiled data on dozens of outcomes and process measures. Across a number of these measures, the U.S. lags behind similarly wealthy OECD countries (those that are similarly large and wealthy based on GDP and GDP per capita).In some cases, such as the rates of all-cause mortality, premature death, death amenable to healthcare, and disease burden, the U.S. is also not improving as quickly as other countries, which means the gap is growing. > **[How does the quality of the U.S. health system compare to other countries? -...](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-start)** > > Despite spending more money per capita on healthcare than any similarly large and wealthy nation, the United States has a lower life expectancy than peer nations and has seen worsening health outcomes since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.  ... ---
**Author:** ![survinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@survinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survinga)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/343 "2019-10-06T19:41:35Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …your plan for UHC includes financial penalties. > > That means you don’t actually get UHC. > > UHC, as I’ve told you before, is underlined by the premise that it is both: > > 1. Universal and > > 2. provides healthcare for all. > > If your system has financial penalties and if your system allows you to not take part: it isn’t universal. It isn’t universal healthcare. > > … > Except your method has gaps. You acknowledge that those gaps exist. Your method is not universal. 1. No, I was actually envisioning something like what Switzerland does on penalties. It has to have enough teeth so that everyone understands it’s a mandate. I’m not going to say exactly what the amounts are, but I like how the Swiss will really go after people (garnish wages, for example). I think Germany and Netherlands have similar views to the Swiss on mandates. The key is that the original ACA was too weak, and under Trump, there’s no penalty at all. It has to be strong enough so that everyone is compelled to enroll. It’s not something that’s for the purpose of raising revenue. It’s for being part of the 3-legged stool for UHC. 2. I’ve said the current system has gaps. A properly designed ACA would not have gaps, because all 3 legs of the stool would exist fully. You’re accusing me of acknowledging something that I didn’t acknowledge. I said it might take a few tweaks to get it totally worked out, but that’s not the same as saying there will be gaps. At the end, there shouldn’t be. You claim to be arguing for UHC. But I don’t think you are at all. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/344 "2019-10-06T20:18:17Z")
> [@survinga](#): > > 1. No, I was actually envisioning something like what Switzerland does on penalties. It has to have enough teeth so that everyone understands it’s a mandate. I’m not going to say exactly what the amounts are, but I like how the Swiss will really go after people (garnish wages, for example). I think Germany and Netherlands have similar views to the Swiss on mandates. The key is that the original ACA was too weak, and under Trump, there’s no penalty at all. It has to be strong enough so that everyone is compelled to enroll. It’s not something that’s for the purpose of raising revenue. It’s for being part of the 3-legged stool for UHC. […“private health insurance is \*\*compulsory \*\*for all persons residing in Switzerland.”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland) The insured don’t pay more than 8% of their income. Your system isn’t compulsory. They aren’t using the same system you propose. > [@](#): > > 1. I’ve said the current system has gaps. A properly designed ACA would not have gaps, because all 3 legs of the stool would exist fully. If insurance isn’t compulsory then you are going to have gaps. > [@](#): > > You’re accusing me of acknowledging something that I didn’t acknowledge. Is it possible under your system that people could not have healthcare insurance and not be eligible for Medicaid because you aren’t poor enough? > [@](#): > > I said it might take a few tweaks to get it totally worked out, but that’s not the same as saying there will be gaps. At the end, there shouldn’t be. Your system shouldn’t need tweaking to get to universality. It would need tweaking though because it doesn’t have **universality at its core**. That’s my entire point. If you start with the premise that “everyone \*\*must \*\*be covered” then why would your starting point be a system that won’t meet its core goal from day one? > [@](#): > > You claim to be arguing for UHC. But I don’t think you are at all. UHC is universal healthcare. Everyone is covered. Everyone gets healthcare. Your system doesn’t cover everyone. ---
**Author:** ![survinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@survinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survinga)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/345 "2019-10-06T20:48:07Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > […“private health insurance is \*\*compulsory \*\*for all persons residing in Switzerland.”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland) The insured don’t pay more than 8% of their income. > > Your system isn’t compulsory. They aren’t using the same system you propose. > > If insurance isn’t compulsory then you are going to have gaps. > > Is it possible under your system that people could not have healthcare insurance and not be eligible for Medicaid because you aren’t poor enough? > > Your system shouldn’t need tweaking to get to universality. It would need tweaking though because it doesn’t have **universality at its core**. That’s my entire point. If you start with the premise that “everyone \*\*must \*\*be covered” then why would your starting point be a system that won’t meet its core goal from day one? > > UHC is universal healthcare. Everyone is covered. Everyone gets healthcare. Your system doesn’t cover everyone. Your argument is bovine excrement. A UHC that’s not single-payer requires companies to sell, requires people to buy, and requires government to subsidize so that it’s affordable. That is exactly what I would do to the ACA to fix the part that doesn’t subsidize enough and doesn’t mandate enough. It would take some lifting, but the principles behind it are unassailable. The mandate has to hurt enough so that people are compelled to buy (it must be accompanied by a very strong penalty of some type). The subsidies have to be enough so that people can afford. It can be Medicaid, or a heavily-subsidized private policy. And companies must sell to everyone, regardless of their income or their health status. If you don’t think that can accomplish UHC, then you are arguing against basic healthcare economics. See Krugman for the basic explanation of how it works: > **[Opinion | Three Legs Good, No Legs Bad (Published 2017)](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/opinion/obamacare-repeal.html)** > > Obamacare versus the party of no ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/346 "2019-10-06T21:03:52Z")
> [@survinga](#): > > Your argument is bovine excrement. …LOL. > [@](#): > > A UHC that’s not single-payer requires companies to sell, requires people to buy, and requires government to subsidize so that it’s affordable. It **requires everyone to be covered**. Say it with me: **UNIVERSAL**. Your system is not universal if the thing that you claim makes it universal is that it is **affordable**. “Affordable” is subjective. The Swiss system has three elements that yours does not, its compulsory (hence universal), its tied to a percentage of your income (you don’t pay more than 8%), and the amount that you pay out of pocket is capped. > [@](#): > > That is exactly what I would do to the ACA to fix the part that doesn’t subsidize enough and doesn’t mandate enough. Can you guarantee that nobody will get 80K bills in your system? Can you guarantee that there will be no people who don’t qualify for medicaid but also can’t afford health insurance? > [@](#): > > It would take some lifting, but the principles behind it are unassailable. Except the principles behind it are assailable. > [@](#): > > The mandate has to hurt enough so that people are compelled to buy (it must be accompanied by a very strong penalty of some type). Why a mandate instead of making it compulsory? If people honestly can’t afford insurance why would you choose to punish them? > [@](#): > > The subsidies have to be enough so that people can afford. How much people can afford is subjective. > [@](#): > > It can be Medicaid, or a heavily-subsidized private policy. And companies must sell to everyone, regardless of their income or their health status. If you don’t think that can accomplish UHC, then you are arguing against basic healthcare economics. It isn’t universal\*\* if everyone isn’t covered.\*\* That’s a pretty basic principle of UHC. Your system allows people to opt out, and if they can’t afford health insurance and if they don’t qualify for Medicaid, or a heavily-subsidized private policy, then your system will **punish them** by making them pay a very strong penalty of some type. Will this penalty drive people to bankruptcy? What if they can’t afford to pay it? ---
**Author:** ![Fentoine\_Lum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b77776/32.png) [@Fentoine\_Lum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fentoine_Lum)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/347 "2019-10-06T21:13:59Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Why is everyone missing the obvious math here? > > Even if your Medicare taxes double – even if they \*triple \*-- you still probably come out ahead because _ **you no longer have to pay for private health insurance** _. Plus no longer having to worry about losing your coverage if you lose your job, etc etc etc. No one pays more than americans for health"care". And no, it ain’t better. ---
**Author:** ![Fentoine\_Lum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b77776/32.png) [@Fentoine\_Lum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fentoine_Lum)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/348 "2019-10-06T21:15:49Z")
> [@survinga](#): > > Your argument is bovine excrement. A UHC that’s not single-payer requires companies to sell, requires people to buy, and requires government to subsidize so that it’s affordable. That is exactly what I would do to the ACA to fix the part that doesn’t subsidize enough and doesn’t mandate enough. It would take some lifting, but the principles behind it are unassailable. The mandate has to hurt enough so that people are compelled to buy (it must be accompanied by a very strong penalty of some type). The subsidies have to be enough so that people can afford. It can be Medicaid, or a heavily-subsidized private policy. And companies must sell to everyone, regardless of their income or their health status. > > If you don’t think that can accomplish UHC, then you are arguing against basic healthcare economics. See Krugman for the basic explanation of how it works: > > [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/opinion/obamacare-repeal.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/opinion/obamacare-repeal.html) Maybe the goal is to keep things such that everyone does _ **not** _ have access to healthcare. ---
**Author:** ![survinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@survinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survinga)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/349 "2019-10-06T21:43:31Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > … > It isn’t universal\*\* if everyone isn’t covered.\*\* That’s a pretty basic principle of UHC. Your system allows people to opt out, and if they can’t afford health insurance and if they don’t qualify for Medicaid, or a heavily-subsidized private policy, then your system will **punish them** by making them pay a very strong penalty of some type. Will this penalty drive people to bankruptcy? What if they can’t afford to pay it? OK, let me try one last time with you. Do you agree that a 3-legged stool exists, such that UHC is achievable if 1)companies must sell to everyone; 2) everyone must buy; 3) government must subsidize so that everyone can afford? Yes or no? Answer that simple question for me, because until you acknowledge this very basic healthcare econ 101 question, I don’t think there’s much else I can do here. ---
**Author:** ![survinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@survinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survinga)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/350 "2019-10-06T21:56:46Z")
> [@Fentoine\_Lum](#): > > Maybe the goal is to keep things such that everyone does _ **not** _ have access to healthcare. That is the goal of the Republicans (and unfortunately a few dems, too). But Krugman understands that the principles of the 3-legged stool work if they’re all properly implemented. The current ACA is too weak, and needs to be strengthened to realize UHC. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/351 "2019-10-06T22:06:29Z")
> [@survinga](#): > > OK, let me try one last time with you. > > Do you agree that a 3-legged stool exists, such that UHC is achievable if 1)companies must sell to everyone; **2) everyone must buy**; \*\*3) government must subsidize so that everyone can afford? \*\* Yes or no? …“everyone must buy” is very different to what you propose, which is “punishing people who choose not to buy.” The “government must subsidize so that everyone can afford” is not the same as what you have argued in this thread which is “we set an arbitrary figure on who does and doesn’t qualify as ‘poor’ who would be eligible for a subsidy.” Two of the three of your “legs” don’t match up with the plan that you talk about in this thread. Which plan do you actually endorse, this plan or the plan you have been advocating throughout this and other threads? > [@](#): > > Answer that simple question for me, You still haven’t answered the questions: Can you guarantee that nobody will get 80K bills in your system? Can you guarantee that there will be no people who don’t qualify for medicaid but also can’t afford health insurance? How about you answer the questions I’ve put to you several times in the thread first? > [@](#): > > because until you acknowledge this very basic healthcare econ 101 question, LOL. The problem isn’t “basic healthcare econ 101.” Its that your plan for UHC won’t get you to UHC. > [@](#): > > I don’t think there’s much else I can do here. I’ll keep posting as long as you keep responding to me. ---
**Author:** ![survinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@survinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survinga)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/352 "2019-10-06T22:22:52Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …“everyone must buy” is very different to what you propose, which is “punishing people who choose not to buy.” The “government must subsidize so that everyone can afford” is not the same as what you have argued in this thread which is “we set an arbitrary figure on who does and doesn’t qualify as ‘poor’ who would be eligible for a subsidy.” > > Two of the three of your “legs” don’t match up with the plan that you talk about in this thread. Which plan do you actually endorse, this plan or the plan you have been advocating throughout this and other threads? > > You still haven’t answered the questions: > > Can you guarantee that nobody will get 80K bills in your system? Can you guarantee that there will be no people who don’t qualify for medicaid but also can’t afford health insurance? > > How about you answer the questions I’ve put to you several times in the thread first? > > LOL. > > The problem isn’t “basic healthcare econ 101.” Its that your plan for UHC won’t get you to UHC. > > I’ll keep posting as long as you keep responding to me. I figured you wouldn’t answer the basic question (just like you wouldn’t admit your flawed premise from post 265). If the answer is “yes”, then you have no choice but to admit that a fixed ACA can deliver UHC. If the answer is “no”, then you’d be trying to pretend that Switzerland doesn’t exist. I’ve already explained my views pretty clearly on this thread and will no longer discuss anything with you on thread, because I can tell what is motivating your posts as I’ve seen on other threads, and I have nothing left to say that wouldn’t run afoul of the moderators. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2019, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357/353 "2019-10-06T22:45:29Z")
> [@survinga](#): > > I figured you wouldn’t answer the basic question (just like you wouldn’t admit your flawed premise from post 265). …LOL. My premise wasn’t flawed. And you’ve been ignoring my questions throughout the thread. You still haven’t answered the question would your plan allow for the possibility of people ending up with 80K of debt. I’ve asked you several times. I figured you wouldn’t answer that basic question. The **3 legs don’t match your plan**. Therefore your plan isn’t UHC **by your very own definition.** > [@](#): > > If the answer is “yes”, then you have no choice but to admit that a fixed ACA can deliver UHC. The version of a “fixed ACA” you have presented in this thread does not deliver UHC. It doesn’t even match the 3 legs you presented in the last post. > [@](#): > > If the answer is “no”, then you’d be trying to pretend that Switzerland doesn’t exist. Your plan and Switzerland’s plan **are not the same**. Switzerland’s plan is compulsory, yours is not. Its tied to a percentage of your income, yours is not. The amount that you pay out of pocket is capped, yours is not. The differences are obvious. > [@](#): > > I’ve already explained my views pretty clearly on this thread and will no longer discuss anything with you on thread, because I can tell what is motivating your posts as I’ve seen on other threads, and I have nothing left to say that wouldn’t run afoul of the moderators. BYE!!! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-despise-trump-but-would-vote-for-him-over-someone-who-wants-to-take-my-familys-insurance-away/840357.md?page=17)