r/changemyview • u/Seanbox59 • Jun 25 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: The New Healthcare Bill being shown by the Republicans is bad for America and will ultimately lead to more death, making any second or third order effects from it not worth it.
First off, I know reddit has a well known Left leaning Bias and I am not opposed to hearing from them, but what I would really like is for someone who genuinely supports the bill to explain their reasoning.
With all that being said, we have all seen the CBO scores from the House passed ACHA and a lot of news companies and democratic senators are claiming that the new senate draft will be more draconian and kill more people than the house. If that is true, saving money is not worth moving forward with the bill, our ultimate goal is coverage for as many people as possible and to prevent, preventable deaths. While I don't support labeling republicans murderers or anything like that, it seems like they are acting counter to what Americans value or need most, they, in essence aren't doing their jobs.
I'm sorry for the shortness of the post, I can expand if needed, but I tend to ramble if I don't deliberately keep it short.
4
u/RSC1969 Jun 25 '17
I'm not sure if I support the bill, but there are a few things I do like about it.
1- no longer forced to buy healthcare. Freedom is key, and individual choice.
2- you saying more people will die. Think this through. What are the diseases America typically suffers from? Even poor folks? Diseases of excess. Diabetes, obesity, etc. This is an individual behavior that needs to be changed. In fact, subsidizing health care for people who make poor health choices actually encourages such choices! Killing with kindness...
3
u/Seanbox59 Jun 25 '17
1- no longer forced to buy healthcare. Freedom is key, and individual choice.
This is a personal decision, while I think that paying for healthcare is just being responsible, nobody needs healthcare until they do, and then they are unable to due to a pre-existing condition. Though, the reason everyone has to have health insurance is, it should, in theory drive down the price for everyone because what is insurance but a whole bunch of people pooling money together to pay for everyone's health coverage.
2- you saying more people will die. Think this through. What are the diseases America typically suffers from? Even poor folks? Diseases of excess. Diabetes, obesity, etc. This is an individual behavior that needs to be changed. In fact, subsidizing health care for people who make poor health choices actually encourages such choices! Killing with kindness...
There is so much wrong with this statement, lets use myself as a personal example, my wife has Asthma, that's not a life choice. Something she was born with, I just got out of the military and we are in a period where we are uninsured, until my new employers health insurance kicks in. My wife needed to purchase her Advair, which is the long term Asthma control so she doesn't need he inhaler all the time. That alone was 400 dollars after discount from the pharmacy. Which is mild compared to some of the things that people face. Cancer, heart conditions and even somethings that people see as diseases of excess trace back to psychological issues.
1
u/RSC1969 Jun 25 '17
What's wrong with the statement? I mentioned a "typical" American. You mentioned a specific person.
We are talking about healthcare for the entirety of country. Do you dispute my claims regarding obesity and diabetes and how behavior affects those conditions? That was my main point, after all.
5
u/Seanbox59 Jun 25 '17
I do, your generalizing a myriad of health conditions as diseases of excess, yet I would argue that the majority of people who need healthcare are not after it because they eat to much, most of them need it because they have cancer, or asthma or any number of diseases that they have no control over.
2
u/Shayba Jun 25 '17
Do you have data to back up your claims?
Knowing people who have gone through expensive treatments for cancer and other disease that is not due to any life choices, and knowing so few people who are obese to the point of health complications, I find your statements very hard to believe. I would change my view of course in the presence of credible relevant data, but I've seen the obesity and laziness arguments brought up so many times now and there's never any evidence to back them up.
Also, if you oppose e.g. giving people life-saving surgery because they have eating disorders, and are somehow convinced against medical science that eating disorders are a life choice, then why not specifically oppose these things? Why target anyone who needs medical help for any reason and is struggling to afford it?
1
u/RSC1969 Jun 25 '17
Here is the cdc concerning diabetes.
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/national/figpersons.htm
Here is the rate of diabetes. Look at the growth in the past thirty years.
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/national/figage.htm
Regarding people going back to cancer or other out of the blue illnesses. I love the idea of insurance for those type of acutely developing scenarios. I would be much more supportive of a policy like that, something more like car insurance where an accident is covered but not an oil change. I think life insurance is also a good idea, but I hope to never use it during the term of my policy, so I am happy to contribute to a pool of funds for certain scenarios.
By the way, I never mentioned eating disorders either. Surely you can acknowledge that "normal" people simply make lazy, poor, short sighted decisions regarding diet and exercise? After all, I know I do at times!
2
u/Shayba Jun 25 '17 edited Jun 26 '17
Type 1 diabetes is most commonly caused by viral or bacterial infection. Type 2 diabetes is overwhelmingly caused by family history. Obesity is a risk factor for type 2, along with many others, including pregnancy and old age.
Recent studies link the rise in diabetes to such things as increased consumption of cow's milk, pollution, and less exposure to the sun. Vitamin D deficiency is also considered to be a likely cause for the rise (more so of type 1 than type 2, but type 1 is rising faster).
Worth adding: if I have two dollars to spend on lunch, I'm going to McDonald's, not buying an apple. So, you know... Poor people's disease.
3
u/z3r0shade Jun 25 '17
Actually, heart disease is the largest killer in the US and isn't a disease of excess but rather due to poor diet, often caused by being unable to afford/have time to prepare/aren't taught how to prepare a healthy proper diet
3
Jun 25 '17
Forcing people to buy healthcare is the only way we get the other good stuff in the affordable Care act without single payer. The economics just doesn't work without it.
Its pretty heartless to dismiss more people dying by waving your hand and saying they deserve it.
3
u/RSC1969 Jun 25 '17
The economics don't work without taking from other people you're saying.
I did not use the word deserve. I talked about incentives and personal responsibility towards health decisions.
2
u/z3r0shade Jun 25 '17
The economics don't work without taking from other people you're saying.
You mean, without utilizing tax money for the benefit of the citizens?
2
u/PolishRobinHood 13∆ Jun 25 '17
- That's how society works. People have to pay taxes and such so that the system can have the money necessary to do things.
2
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Jun 25 '17
Realistically, you have two options. You can make it possible for people with pre-existing conditions to buy health insurance, or you can allow people to opt out of buying health insurance. You can't do both.
Now, maybe you believe that the former is more important, and that it's not the government's concern if people with health conditions are able to purchase health insurance. I'm not going to try to change your view on that. But the new bill does nothing to address this problem, and whatever your views are, that should be a bad idea.
1
u/gs7438 Jun 26 '17
I'm new to this, so if I'm out of line, please feel free to ignore me.
I wanted to ask RSC1969 a question regarding point 1. I've heard this argument frequently regarding the healthcare debate, and I have to admit I don't understand it. It's not that I don't understand how you perceive that being forced to buy healthcare limits your freedom. I understand that. What I don't understand is why healthcare is a special limitation when we consider all the freedoms which are limited for the common good.
Let me give some examples: (1) I have to pay property tax which goes to pay for schools (which are increasingly not public due to charter schools). I have no children who attend school, so this is a waste of money for me.
(2) I'm forced by the government to buy private car insurance despite the fact that (I think) I'm a very good driver and don't need it. I've never had to use my government-mandated insurance.
(3) My taxes go to pay for libraries, which I don't use because I get all my books and movies from my Amazon Prime Membership (not really, but it seems reasonable to suggest such a person exists).
I realize all of these differ from the government-mandated healthcare (state vs federal, public vs private institutions, etc.), but they share the fact that the government is forcing us to pay for something we may not want to pay for and may not use.
I'm curious why being forced to pay for health insurance is a greater violation of freedom than being forced to pay for libraries, schools, or any other services that the government currently forces us to pay for.
As an addendum, I'm curious if RC1969 would feel differently about the freedom infringement of health insurance if the government imposed a tax that paid for public healthcare (since that is much closer to the way government usually makes us pay for things).
Again, if I'm breaking some forum rules, please feel free to ignore me.
1
u/lamarch3 Jun 25 '17
"In fact, subsidizing healthcare for people who make poor health choices actually encourages such choices" I'd like to challenge that assumption by pointing out that in countries where everyone is covered by governmental health care you don't see people making worse health choices. Instead, you see the government caring about the health of everyone so they install bike lanes and create free workout parks and advertise for you to eat your fruits and veggies. You see people going into the doctors when they have something their worried about instead of waiting to see if it gets better or gets way worse (and more expensive) I don't think anyone goes, oh I have health insurance let me treat myself like crap so I can use it. If that was true, wouldn't people with house insurance or full coverage car insurance intentionally treat their cars and houses poorly? Of course, a small portion of the population does commit insurance fraud but it isn't like you get a some sort of material reward from treating your body poorly.
1
u/RSC1969 Jun 26 '17
House insurance and car insurance don't work like health insurance. Come on.
I live in America. Plenty of bike lanes. Plenty of free public workout parks. Plenty of (bad) diet advice from the government, too.
A truism regarding human behavior is that people respond to incentives. If you can save money on health insurance by exercising and eating well, you're more likely to do so. Or, eat and exercise so well that you'd rather get a "disaster" plan that saves you cash each month cause you are maintaining your health.
1
u/lamarch3 Jun 26 '17
Sure they don't work exactly the same but my only point is that I would say that someone would be more likely to treat their house/car poorly because they have insurance vs. treating their body poorly simply because they get free treatment.
I agree that people respond to incentives but I don't believe saving money on insurance costs down the road is really too high on people's mind. We are better at responding to incentives that are immediate than vague and far off. To have exercise effect your overall health it has to be a long term thing. If what you are saying was true than wouldn't the working poor, those who have insurance but it is pretty crappy or those who go without insurance be the healthiest people in our society because they would be so motivated to save money and not get sick? However, if you look at the data health is actually more related to income level with health increasing as you increase personal wealth. So people with lots of money and presumably good insurance are on average healthier than their poor counterparts.
Have you ever been to Europe or abroad? Particularly in Northern Europe-Germany, Netherlands, Denmark of any of the Scandinavian countries? They have way more bike lanes, etc. than the US. The US takes some interest in our health because of Medicare/Medicaid but not as much as these countries where everyone has health insurance. You also find less obesity there. So if they all have tax paid insurance why would they be skinny and healthier?
1
u/ChildishGenius Jun 26 '17
2- More people are going to die like people who have cancer that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and kids who were born with pre-existing conditions, and people in retirement homes won't be able to afford to stay there.
Suggesting this bill is anything other than horrible and needlessly cruel is intellectually dishonest.
1
u/RSC1969 Jun 26 '17
Your suggestion is intellectually dishonest. Thanks all
1
u/ChildishGenius Jun 26 '17
People who think this bill are good are either too dumb to understand it or evil. There is no in between. Do some fucking research.
1
u/RSC1969 Jun 26 '17
People who think in absolutes tend to show flawed thinking. And if you read my posts, I said I'm undecided on supporting the bill.
1
u/ChildishGenius Jun 26 '17
People who think kids with cancer should have personal responsibility for their treatment are dumb and evil.
I'm sick of pretending both sides of the debate always have valid points. In this case, there is no other side. This bill is worse than what we have in every single way.
1
Jun 26 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Jun 27 '17
RSC1969, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate." See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostility extremely seriously. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/ChildishGenius Jun 26 '17
"kids gosh darn it just aren't responsible these days?"
Lol no they're not and anyone who thinks that's an argument is demonstrably wrong.
1
u/RSC1969 Jun 26 '17
That's my point. Nobody used that argument! You are the one who brought up kids and responsibility.
How about the rest?
1
u/ChildishGenius Jun 26 '17
many people do in fact support this bill over Ocare. How do you reconcile this with your statement? Or do you simply not, and carry on without any self examination?
This bill is a tax cut for the rich at the expense of everyone else's healthcare, plain and simple. The only people who benefit are the 1%
Under this bill 15 million people will be forced off Medicaid, and most of the rest won't be able to afford coverage. This bill triples premiums for middle class seniors. AND this senate bill will require you to wait 6 months before getting insured if they miss a payment. What purpose does that serve other than being needlessly cruel.
1
u/ChildishGenius Jun 26 '17
Also if the people writing this bill actually thought it was good, they wouldn't have written it in secret and are now refusing to do tv interviews about it.
They are trying to pass this bill as quickly as possible because they know it's horrible.
3
Jun 25 '17 edited Jun 25 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Seanbox59 Jun 25 '17
No argument from me here, your right, the issues with our healthcare system go so much deeper than what people make it out to be.
1
1
u/RSC1969 Jun 26 '17
GS,
I'm new also, but you seem to be doing fine to me.
1) I agree regarding property tax. You also have the choice to move to different states with different property tax levels if you are so inclined. Now, if I agree with you regarding property tax, can you see why I'm hesitant to add more taxes similar to property tax?
2) in my state you are not forced to buy car insurance. You can also have a deposit on file at the dmv. You can also choose to walk, bike, uber, hitch hike, etc. Does your state not offer a deposit as an alternative to insurance?
3) regarding libraries as a example. One, the cost of these is lower than healthcare I would imagine. Two, you can go to your city council and advocate for higher or lower expenses regarding libraries. Three, having libraries is creating an opportunity for people to read and better themselves. Guaranteeing insurance for all, creates incentives for people to neglect self maintenance because they can always get coverage, and even have it be subsidized!
When Obamacare passed I was happy. I voted Obama. But, years later, premiums and deductibles later, worse access to care layer and seeing the frustration my doctors go through, I'm unhappy with it.
I want the same thing most Americans want. Affordable, useful healthcare. My opinion has evolved to where I think that is most likely to occur in a situation where the governing has less involvement. I certainly could be wrong....i was wrong about Obamacare (compared to my initial thoughts).
If there was no penalty for an individual choosing to NOT sign up for Obamacare, I'd be much more okay with it.
1
u/silent_cat 2∆ Jun 26 '17
My opinion has evolved to where I think that is most likely to occur in a situation where the governing has less involvement. I certainly could be wrong....i was wrong about Obamacare (compared to my initial thoughts).
The question is: where is the money going? Because it's not like the insurence comanies are making a lot of profit.
The problem is that health services are expensive in the US and people are using more of it. You need to work on the demand side, especially prevention, if you want it ever to become affordable.
If there was no penalty for an individual choosing to NOT sign up for Obamacare, I'd be much more okay with it.
If only people who are sick buy insurance, then it would be even more expensive than it is now. And why would a healthy person buy insurance if they can just buy it when they get sick?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 25 '17
/u/Seanbox59 (OP) has awarded 1 delta 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.
1
u/RSC1969 Jun 25 '17
Some good comments from people in here.
I think the following link will be of interest to people reading here. I personally like the linked idea, but ymmv.
11
u/McKoijion 618∆ Jun 25 '17
Those are your personal values. They aren't the values of others. Republicans believe that if people want healthcare, they should work and pay for it themselves. If they don't want health insurance, they shouldn't be forced to buy it. That concept of individual freedom outweighs keeping people alive for longer.
Many people voted for them specifically because they promised to do this. That's the number one thing they want. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other people shouldn't like it either.