The debate "The GOP's American Healthcare Act is worse than the Affordable Care Act" was started by
March 8, 2017, 9:55 pm.
6 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 0 person is on the disagree side.
There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
TheExistentialist posted 8 arguments, Hippocrates posted 3 arguments, blue_rayy posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist, Hippocrates, blue_rayy, historybuff and 2 visitors agree.
I know multisyllabic words are hard for you, but I purposely kept it a simple response so that even you could understand my issue with the nonsense your spouting....I'm not really in the mood to bemean my responses to the level of personal insult, but I guess you have to go down that road since you don't have a grasp on the subject itself.
Here are some facts for you though to once again illustrate your complete lack of understanding on the subject. I doubt they'll matter to you, but it will serve to point out your ignorance to others.
62 percent of voters oppose cutting Planned Parenthood’s funding, while 31 percent are in favor of doing so, the Quinnipiac University poll found.
And 70 percent of Americans support Roe v. Wade, while 26 percent disagree with the court’s decision.
a question giving voters four options on abortion, nine percent said it should be illegal in all cases, while 28 percent said it should be legal in all cases. Thirty-six percent said abortion should be legal in most cases, while 22 percent said it should be illegal in most cases.
The survey was conducted from Jan. 20-25 2017, polling 1,190 American voters across the country. It has a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points.
response and intellectual are "big words"! lol
and they also provide std testing and basic gynecological services. although gynecological may be a tad bigger than "response." I hope you are able to process it.
From the debate on abortion, it is clearly that those who support the murder of babies are outnumbered by those who are against it by 425%. You peasants are in the minority.
TheExistentialist, well done, you really made an effort there using big boy words like "equivalent", "response" and "intellectual" lmfao! Your daddy would be proud of you for once if he was around.
historybuff, and youre the typical liberal, which means you have AIDs. Tell me, what good work do they do? systematically kill babies, is that it? and here i thought you were meant to be against genocide, you goatf***er.
So, just to recap here @thereal. I presented you with valid reasons for keeping PP and you respond with "yall bitches just salty because PP is going bye bye!"....The intellectual deficiency of this response alone is proof of your ignorance of the subject of healthcare and serves as a reminder that your ability to form an argument is surpassed even by a six year old arguing for a later bed time.
Now, why don't you let the grown ups debate; you can rant on the comments section of YouTube since your input here is the intellectual equivalent.
so despite the fact they do a large amount of very good work, you are celebrating them having their funding cut for solely political reasons?
you really are an idiot aren't you?
Loooooool yall bitches just salty because PP is going bye bye!
This is how we know you don't actually understand the subject at all.
No federal funding can go towards abortion services at this point anyway. So defunding PP will do nothing to actually impact the abortion services portion of their scope of practice.
However, cancer screening, birth control, STD testing as well as male health issues (STD testing, jock itch tx, vasectomies, etc...) will be defunded. Congratulations, Trump will have made abortions more common by not providing birth control.
Essentially you're advocating for cancer, STDs, and abortions. This type of knee jerk reaction to issues that require careful analysis along with the insistence on simple solutions to complex problems is the bane of government.
so he takes health care from poor people, in short he is killing Americans too weak to defend themselves. but he is trying to remove funding from an agency that helps women, which will kill more Americans, so you don't care. you are a really terrible person.
Lmao that nigga trump is defunding PP so idgaf.
it's a massive give away to the wealthy, with a hidden bonus of about 400million to ceos of insurance companies while screwing the poor, especially the old.
party of the people my ass. democrats have their bad apples, but the main decision makers of the right really do seem to have an anti American conspiracy to empower a small group of elites at the expense of the people of this nation.
What you've said is true.
I agree that their system is better than the US (most systems in the 1st world are, so it's not a very high standard to achieve). However, it is still second in per-capita spending (66% as much as the US; France only spends 25% as much as the US and has better outcomes than the US and the Swiss).
If you look at systems like the UK, Germany, France, and to some extent Denmark (central governing system; healthcare managed and funded by local municipalities) etc.... It becomes pretty clear that the private insurance market isn't a cost effective means of primary insurance for the populous. It also becomes pretty clear that the outcomes are actually better in single payer systems as opposed to private market only systems.
The private market is best to fill in the gaps left by whatever universal system (think of medicare supplemental insurance rather than something like a PPO).
Iam sorry for my reading error. Thought they were arranged in the decresing order.
Anyway, these 10 countries have the best healthcare systems in the world.
A rank up and a rank down doesnt make them too different or bad. Swiss healthcare might not be as same as French healthcare but still they are from the list of top 10. So Swiss health system isnt bad either.
Once again, i'm sorry.
"i said swiss health care system sucks"
actually, what you said was "Switzerland is a small country. It wouldnt work"
this is an assertion, not a substantiated claim.
An argument usually goes
premise, premise, etc... conclusion.
You jumped straight to the conclusion without any evidence to support your claim.
here is a resource to get you going on how to make an argument
"so which's the world's best healthcare system according to you? France or US?"
The US doesn't even crack the top ten by any real measure except cancer survival rates. By any measurable qualifier, the US certainly can't be number 1 1 (it would be really hard to argue that it belongs in the top 10 even). It's hard to argue with France's efficiency; lowest cost, plus the lowest mortality rates for preventable diseases is a pretty good start. However, for pure robustness and most flexibility, I'd say Denmark has a really good model to follow. Especially for the US where we have very well defined municipalities (states).
so which's the world's best healthcare system according to you? France or US? . I believe its US but Hippocrates provided a link which shows France is at the top.
i said swiss health care system sucks.
By what analysis did you come to this conclusion. Can you show your sources or support your claim in any way?
according to the W.H.O. the US spends significantly more per capita than France or Switzerland does (stats for 2016: France spends $4500/citizen and the US spends $9400/citizen; the swiss spend $6400/citizen).
So, the systems they use are simply more efficient and have and to top it off, they have better outcomes:
Actually, the list you provided shows the Swiss in the 10th spot with France occupying the number 1 spot. Reading the article confirms this.
Directly from the article:
"For years, France has been considered to have the most efficient, functional healthcare system in the world by many, including the World Health Organization. They use a combination of private and public coverage, and nearly everyone in France has health insurance. Most people in France have additional private insurance, and almost all medical bills in France are covered by the government. France has one of the top rankings when it comes to efficiency in spending on medical care, which allows the government to pay around seventy percent of all medical bills. Perhaps the most telling statistic is that France is reported to have the lowest amount of deaths that could have been prevented with basic medical insurance of any country."
Switzerland is a small country. It wouldnt work.
The Swiss healthcare system is the best in the world as of 2016.
So how does it works?
Swiss citizens buy insurance for themselves; there are no employer-sponsored or government-run insurance programs. Hence, insurance prices are transparent to the beneficiary. The government defines the minimum benefit package that qualifies for the mandate. Critically, all packages require beneficiaries to pick up a portion of the costs of their care (deductibles and coinsurance) in order to incentivize their frugality.
The government subsidizes health care for the poor on a graduated basis, with the goal of preventing individuals from spending more than 10 percent of their income on insurance. But because people are still on the hook for a significant component of the costs, they often opt for cheaper packages; in 2003, 42% of Swiss citizens chose high-deductible plans (i.e., plans with significant cost-sharing features). Those who wish to acquire supplemental coverage are free to do so on their own.
99.5% of Swiss citizens have health insurance. Because they can choose between plans from nearly 100 different private insurance companies, insurers must compete on price and service, helping to curb health care inflation. Most beneficiaries have complete freedom to choose their doctor, and appointment waiting times are almost as low as those in the U.S., the world leader.
So my final opinion is that since Switzerland has the best healthcate in the world, the US government needs to learn something from it. Maybe by implementing ' SwissCare' or by swissifying america.
The AHCA (GOP's plan) will reduce the number of people eligible for medicaid by changing medicaid’s guarantee of coverage; it will be replaced with a “per capita allotment” and “flexibility” for the states, meaning they’ll be free to reduce benefits and remove people. So instead of simply qualifying for medicaid based on socio-economics, you also have to "win" a "lottery" of sorts to be covered. If you don't "win" this lottery (which means you don't make enough to buy insurance) you will simply be left with no options. Currently there are 14 million individuals on medicaid simply due to the ACA. So, depending on the "cap" they choose, a large percentage will likely loose their coverage.
Subsidies will be in the form of tax credits rather than instant "discounts". It just gives you a flat tax credit 2k/year for a young person, 4k/year for an individual in their 50's-60's. If premiums go up — which they will — too bad; the tax credits don't scale. You will also have to pay the full bill upfront and wait till the end of the year to get back your money.
Among the positive benefits of the ACA was to extend the life of the Medicare trust fund, which makes up the difference when payroll taxes fail to cover the full cost of the program. Repealing the taxes in the ACA will hasten the day when the trust fund is drained by four years.
It will cost the elderly more. The ACA capt the up-charging of elderly at 3x the rate of younger customers. The AHCA caps this "up-charge" at 5x. However, the subsidies are only 2x. So the cost for older individuals will skyrocket.
The Urban Institute estimated that about half of people, under the Republican system, could use their tax credits to buy a plan with an actuarial value of a mere 47 percent. Meaning they would have a plan with a max deductible and out of pocket max of about $7k/individuals and $13k/families.
All people ages 60 and younger in the same risk pool could purchase a 34 percent AV plan using only their tax credit. An illustrative plan at this level would have a $15,000 single/$30,000 family deductibles. For seniors this gets even worse. People ages 61 to 64 could purchase a 25 percent or lower AV plan using only the tax credit; this plan would have the $25,000/$50,000 deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums.