5 ms·

Can anyone explain to me why it would have been a bad idea for the Republicans to have introduced a single-player plan and then claimed to have fixed healthcare

by defen 10y ago

Can anyone explain to me why it would have been a bad idea for the Republicans to have introduced a single-player plan and then claimed to have fixed healthcare? Feels like they missed a big opportunity there. Is it purely ideology?

thebiglebrewski 10y ago
Because this wasn't really a "healthcare bill" it was a tax cut bill to transfer 600 billion dollars from the poor to the wealthy. It was never even about healthcare, it's about wealthy/monied interested who own the Republican party, which has somehow become the standard bearer for poor people who apparently just don't understand that their own party has it out for them.
- wahern 10y ago
  Technically speaking, I think the nominal notion was to _prevent_ the transfer of $600 billion from the wealthy to the poor. In actuality, because of twisted Republican orthodoxy combined with the reality of politics, at the end of the day the approach would have resulted in $600 billion in deficit spending.
foota 10y ago
Most likely, yes. Seems the house freedom caucus is the group most opposed to any sort of government healthcare.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  The House Freedom Caucus should be forced to buy their insurance on the individual markets, with no allowance for pre-existing conditions. Any thing else is absolute hypocracy.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
burkaman 10y ago
Yes, they genuinely don't want single payer. Trump seems open to it, and certainly a lot of this debate is political posturing, but single payer is completely opposed to every stated and unstated principle of the Republican party.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  My impression is that the vast majority of GOP voters want things to go back to the way they were.
Upvoter33 10y ago
big insurance companies in this country have paid millions of dollars over the years to make sure this doesn't happen sadly.
makomk 10y ago
Aside from the fact that Republicans don't want it, it's a surefire political loser. It'd piss off the health industry whose profits would be impacted. It'd piss off anyone who was already happy with their healthcare. It'd piss off their wealthy donors, who would have to pay more in taxes for it. It'd give a whole bunch of fuel to the activists and journalists who're already going after the Republicans, because single-payer is only workable elsewhere by refusing to pay for expensive stuff that doesn't help patients, and that stuff comes in vital-sounding guises like "essential healthcare benefits" and cancer screening and treatment. Setting it up would also be a massive, unprecedented task. Also, I think a fundamental problem with any Republican healthcare plan is that the opposition to it doesn't have a politically coherent set of principles that they could bargain with. For example, one of the features of the ACA is that it subsidises all elderly people regardless of wealth through the 3:1 cap on age-based premium differences. This is indirectly taxpayer-funded through subsidies to buy the insurance plans that subsidise it (for people who often can't afford to use their insurance), but the trick used to hide who's being subsidised also makes insurance unaffordable for young people. So Republicans want to replace the whole mess with a straightforward taxpayer-funded, age-based subsidy. Cue press attacks about how the evil moustache-twirling Republicans want to send seniors' insurance rates skyrocketing and hand out subsidies to people regardless of wealth.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Here are the ACA essential healthcare benefits: https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/what-marketplace-plans-cover/ https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/what-marketplace-plans-c... Which ones do you see as the least helpful for patients? edit: There are several that aren't particularly insurable, but they are generally useful services.
  - makomk 10y ago
    Probably some of the "preventative and wellness services" and coverage for prescription drugs, surgeries and other treatments with the worst cost-to-benefit ratios. That's how it's always worked here in the UK. For example, breast cancer screening is only offered every three years here compared to 1-2 years as required by the ACA and for a narrower age window too, some of the other screenings probably aren't offered at all, and the more expensive chemotherapy treatments aren't covered either.

by defen 10y ago

thebiglebrewski 10y ago

Because this wasn't really a "healthcare bill" it was a tax cut bill to transfer 600 billion dollars from the poor to the wealthy. It was never even about healthcare, it's about wealthy/monied interested who own the Republican party, which has somehow become the standard bearer for poor people who apparently just don't understand that their own party has it out for them.

wahern 10y ago
Technically speaking, I think the nominal notion was to _prevent_ the transfer of $600 billion from the wealthy to the poor. In actuality, because of twisted Republican orthodoxy combined with the reality of politics, at the end of the day the approach would have resulted in $600 billion in deficit spending.

foota 10y ago

Most likely, yes. Seems the house freedom caucus is the group most opposed to any sort of government healthcare.

infinite8s 10y ago
The House Freedom Caucus should be forced to buy their insurance on the individual markets, with no allowance for pre-existing conditions. Any thing else is absolute hypocracy.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

burkaman 10y ago

Yes, they genuinely don't want single payer. Trump seems open to it, and certainly a lot of this debate is political posturing, but single payer is completely opposed to every stated and unstated principle of the Republican party.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
My impression is that the vast majority of GOP voters want things to go back to the way they were.

Upvoter33 10y ago

big insurance companies in this country have paid millions of dollars over the years to make sure this doesn't happen sadly.

makomk 10y ago

Aside from the fact that Republicans don't want it, it's a surefire political loser. It'd piss off the health industry whose profits would be impacted. It'd piss off anyone who was already happy with their healthcare. It'd piss off their wealthy donors, who would have to pay more in taxes for it. It'd give a whole bunch of fuel to the activists and journalists who're already going after the Republicans, because single-payer is only workable elsewhere by refusing to pay for expensive stuff that doesn't help patients, and that stuff comes in vital-sounding guises like "essential healthcare benefits" and cancer screening and treatment. Setting it up would also be a massive, unprecedented task. Also, I think a fundamental problem with any Republican healthcare plan is that the opposition to it doesn't have a politically coherent set of principles that they could bargain with. For example, one of the features of the ACA is that it subsidises all elderly people regardless of wealth through the 3:1 cap on age-based premium differences. This is indirectly taxpayer-funded through subsidies to buy the insurance plans that subsidise it (for people who often can't afford to use their insurance), but the trick used to hide who's being subsidised also makes insurance unaffordable for young people. So Republicans want to replace the whole mess with a straightforward taxpayer-funded, age-based subsidy. Cue press attacks about how the evil moustache-twirling Republicans want to send seniors' insurance rates skyrocketing and hand out subsidies to people regardless of wealth.

maxerickson 10y ago
Here are the ACA essential healthcare benefits: https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/what-marketplace-plans-cover/ https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/what-marketplace-plans-c... Which ones do you see as the least helpful for patients? edit: There are several that aren't particularly insurable, but they are generally useful services.
- makomk 10y ago
  Probably some of the "preventative and wellness services" and coverage for prescription drugs, surgeries and other treatments with the worst cost-to-benefit ratios. That's how it's always worked here in the UK. For example, breast cancer screening is only offered every three years here compared to 1-2 years as required by the ACA and for a narrower age window too, some of the other screenings probably aren't offered at all, and the more expensive chemotherapy treatments aren't covered either.