Skip to comments.Should Republicans Embrace Universal Healthcare?
Posted on 01/31/2014 8:43:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Voters have been primed to blame the rich for their woes and expect medical insurance as a right, so the next logical step will be to morph ObamaCare into a vessel that achieves those goals: socialized medicine.
The Republican alternatives of self-reliance and invisible hand manifestations are like a Beethoven concerto played for a strip club audience demanding heavy metal to accompany overt gyrations by a near-naked entertainer.
Can Republicans entice the majority without selling their souls, not to mention the future of our great Republic, or will they allow further slide into the unsustainable, inefficient transfer-of-wealth Democratic vision?
To get logically to where I believe Republicans need to be on this issue, let us consider the status quo.
Government employees have great medical insurance. Lawmakers have legislated the best insurance for themselves, but all "public servants" have also been ordained to deserve superior insurance. While teachers, for example, complain about being underpaid for their nine months of work each year, they happily accept their twelve months of excellent health insurance.
As union members, many government employees, including teachers, overlap the second group with generally great insurance. It isn't a coincidence that unions, as big Democratic supporters, received special exemptions from ObamaCare.
In addition, Medicaid has been expanded by Obamacare, and while this insurance has never been championed as the best in the land, it does provide free coverage to an increasing number of people.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Republicans “should”? be Conservative and follow Conservative ideals.
“Republicans” who embrace universal healthcare might as well then take the next step and join the communist party.
Republicans should embrace the US Constitution and let the rest flow from there.
The GOP will be way past death watch right after it bends over and allows a Bawney Fwank by the illegal aliens.
The GOP is dead, dead, dead.
They stink...they smell like Obamastuff.
They are uglier than Nostralitis Waxman.
They are dumber than Nancy (boink a rich man and become a congresscritter) Box-osi.
Liberty is dying.
We are about to enter, as Churchill predicted, a new Dark Age m. One which will be made the more terrible and prolonged by the sinister powers of science.
Yeah... The answer to this will always be “No”.
One of the key problems is that we have developed medical technologies that are more and more costly. We all want the latest procedures/pharmaceuticals/prosthetics, but we want someone else to pay for them. The future promises more of the same. Handing out blank checks will not solve the problem, as I see it,
.....IT’S ODUNGO’s objective....
Articles like this are all about getting the ball rolling on the GOP helping to “fix” obamacare.
Something will have to be done. Over 50 million people we lose their employer provided health care and be dumped on the exchanges by their employers. Maybe 100 million. The GOP knows there will be way to repeal Democratcare once that back once it happens. So the GOP leadership is just sitting tight and letting it happen.
Not in a million years!
(What a question!?)
Common Sense 101; Universal Healthcare would be unsustainable on every level.
Universal Healthcare is the Liberal buzz-word for power.
Like Obamacare, 30million plus, people will STILL be without healthcare i.e., insurance of any kind. Healthcare will still be provided for the truly needy.
Answer is: NO....no one should embrace healthcare, Universal or Obamacare.
I remember the adage, “No question is stupid if you don’t know the answer”. This is the exception.. the question is stupid. NO, NO, and NO.
Why? Healthcare is meant to be individual, if it is universal and we all must fit into the same pattern.
Perhaps instead of MyRA they should have MyHealthcare for the poor to buy into.
Why not? They’ve already embraced Amnesty.
simple answer is NO NO NO
That’s my biggest question for Mark Levin.
In an era where so many of our fellow citizens seem to feel that they have a RIGHT to health care, do we REALLY want to be opening up an Article V Convention?
Government involvement is generally not an ‘improvement’. I can’t even begin contemplate how this would work and I’m not even going to try.
Sure, just let islamocommunism sweep over the land. We were only supposed to be America, evidently.
Again we come back to the definitions.
What is a “Republican”? Do they mean the GOPe that’s entrenched in DC? Probably.
They certainly don’t mean the base, the conservatives, because “universal healthcare” is antithetical.
Cruz’s effort was the last chance to kill Universal Health Care.
It’s all about how to do it now.
This fellow has a lot of misconceptions.
Basically, it requires the greatest degree of economic freedom: national private plans with coverage as desired by their customers. and, of course, subsidies for the shiftless and stupid.
How yuh gunna pay for it?
The writer seems to be operating under the assumption that socialism and freedom are just different ways of achieving the same good results. If that were true, then everyone should be a socialist. The problem is when mean old reality sets in. We live in a world of scarce resources. Don’t like it, take it up with God, or at least with Adam and Eve. What forces can more efficiently allocate those scarce resources to their highest and best use? Government/coercion? Or markets/freedom? Hong Kong or Cuba? North Korea or South Korea? East Germany or West Germany?
This is not like picking who you are going to support in the Super Bowl. His analogy of playing Beethoven to a heavy metal-loving strip club crowd is too crude to make much of a point. This is not all just a matter of taste (or of getting elected for the sake of getting elected). There are real world consequences. Really.
The increase in demand leads to:
1) an overall increase in cost of medical care as a whole to the taxpayers.
2) a decrease in quality and quality of medical care supplied by doctors to individuals.
The bureaucratizing of medicine and the control of doctor's fees and treatments turns doctors into slaves, and ultimately makes medicine unattractive as a profession, which will lead to a decrease in the supply of doctors and a doctor shortage.
To control costs, the government will have to resort to death panels, a prohibition of many procedures, and opposition to medical advances, in order to save money.
Republicans are accused of every sort of ill will, stupidity, ignorance, hate, etc. having nothing to do with reality. Liberals do it because the media publishes their views as truth and people at large believe it. IT WORKS1
GOD HELP AMERICA,
NOT ONLY NO! BUT HELL NO! NEVER!
EVEN WHEN WE AGREE WITH THE LIBERALS IDEAS, WE ARE CASTIGATED AS HAVING ALL SORTS OF BAD INTENTIONS.
WE MUST HAVE FAITH AND STAND STRONG DOING THE RIGHT THING. KEEPING AMERICA ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT CREATED THE GREATEST LIFE, OPPORTUNITIES, AND SUCCESS EVER. MO!
WE CAN NOT STOP THE ATTACKS, TWISTED CORRUPTION OF OUR ACTIONS, ETC. STAND STRONG FOR TRUTH. GOD IS TURNED AWAY FROM THE CURRENT LIFE AS LIVED IN America. SAME SEX MARRIAGE, ABORTION AND MANY THINGS AGAINST HIS COMMANDMENTS. RANT OVER.
Hell no, medical care would wind up as crappy as it is in Europe or Canada.
It’s a false premise to begin with. You can shoot for universal enrollment, which as we’ve seen, requires curtailing certain freedoms, but achieving a universality of actual care will never happen due to the inherent imbalance of supply and demand. Just look at the UK.
Yes, of course they should. They all screamed at Cruz to get off the stage, Boehner gave him the hook and spreads the false pride that Cruz shut down the govt.
He was supposed to shut up and let it fail and allow republicans to come in and fix it after they took power back
I got yelled at for saying that was crazy that the GOP couldn’t be trusted and Cruz knew it
Now they can prove me right then maybe people will start getting good people in there. Dream on I know
If universal coverage had been the goal of Obamacare it sure could have been done cheaper and better. When the Whole Foods article came out basically advocating high deductible plans with health savings account during the debate I did a little research and crunched numbers. Based on what the CMS reported was the per capita expenditure on medical care by the government and what the OPM had as a high deductible plan they offered in every state, I calculated that the government could have bought everyone in the country a high deductible plan and still have saved $200 billion per year. That was before Obamacare was passed. Now we have spent hundreds of billions and have even more uninsured. I think control and not universal coverage is the true goal.
Not only no, but hell NO!!
The GOP is pushing amnesty, wants to downplay abortion and homo marriage, etc, and now is considering pushing socialist health care? What the hell good is it? FUGOP!!
It was government getting involved in healthcare in the 1960’s thru Medicare and Medicaid that ruined healthcare and caused prices to go thru the roof in the first place.
It used to be you could get the doctor to visit you at home for about $5, and he might do a variety of things for you for the price—diagnose you with the flu and give you a script for the pharmacy to cut out your ingrown toenail. All for the same price! But once Medicare starting paying, for example, a maximum of $95 for a ingrown toenail that every doctor and hospital started charging $95 across the country for an ingrown toenail procedure.
If I were going to have Universal Health care, I would do a two tier system.
Tier 1 is for folks with their own insurance or purchasing their own care. They get best health care that their insurance or money will buy with whatever arrangements their insurance or they can arrange.
Tier 2 is for folks who don't pay for their own health care. They get bones set, wounds sown up, vaccinations, and generic (only!) meds and have to make a copay ($20 for a visit, $30 for ER, $5 for drugs - adjust for inflation). No heroic measures. No cutting edge medicine. No resuscitation. They are also automatically enrolled as organ donors.
RE: Tier 2 is for folks who don’t pay for their own health care
What happens when they get cancer or a heart attack or get ran over by a car?
They get basic treatment for the issue, but they don’t get the latest and greatest. If that isn’t good enough, they die.
Or they find charity hospitals to take their case and give them the latest and greatest care.
Their need does not create an obligation for their state or the taxpayer. That must come to an end.
There are consequences for not being responsible for your own health care.
You left out those that get chained to the obligation of others: hospitals, doctors, nurses....The State does not care as it can tax.
I continue to see how folks, especially on the Left, can’t grasp that ‘compassion’ doesn’t give the ability to enslave one for the benefit of another. No ‘Right’ entails FORCE.
Before ObamaCare, we already had universal health care. A sick or injured person at the emergency room will be treated, even without insurance, and even if that person is unable to pay. What we didn’t have and still don’t have is universal insurance. I can understand the appeal of saving an injured person’s life, but I fail to see why sensible people would destroy our medical system over the payment mechanism, when everyone already has access to emergency care.
The benefits of ObamaCare include huge subsidies for those with inside connections, but I’m not sure why ordinary people would support that. ObamaCare also includes contraceptive coverage, which may matter for someone as active as Sandra Fluke who spends thousands of dollars a year on contraception, but doesn’t actually help those who could get the pill at Target for $8 a month. The cost of ObamaCare (the death of religious freedom and economic freedom) is way too high for any sensible person to support universal ObamaCare coverage and in no way justifies the trivial benefits.
RE: A sick or injured person at the emergency room will be treated, even without insurance
What happens when the sick person who had no insurance is sick with a disease that requires constant taking of an expensive pill or say, dialysis, or chemo?
Having been in that position and received several years of (uninsured) medical help that I could not pay for, I can tell you that charity does wonders. I also became quite successful afterward and now help to fund medical charities.
The system before ObamaCare worked adequately to well for more people than any other system imaginable. I suspect that ObamaCare will destroy both our medical system and our charity system. Plus, there is no virtue in forced charity, while there is a lot of virtue in the generosity that I experienced and now try to pass on.
Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.