How should we think about this?

[berg80]

Americans Support Federal Funding for Hospital Bills of Uninsured, With Limits​

A separate nationally representative web survey using Gallup’s probability-based panel, conducted Nov. 3-16, tested the public’s views on whether the federal government should provide funding to hospitals to cover medical expenses for uninsured Americans. When asked simply if the government should provide such funding, 73% of Americans say it should, and 25% say it should not. While majorities of Democrats (93%) and independents (78%) agree that the government should pay for the care of uninsured patients, a majority of Republicans (53%) disagree.

Americans have a different perspective on covering hospitals’ costs for the uninsured when the question specifies the residency status of those patients. When asked to choose from three options, a slim majority of U.S. adults (51%) favor federal funding to cover medical expenses for uninsured legal residents of the U.S., while 33% think it should cover costs for all uninsured patients, including those living in the country illegally. Another 14% of Americans believe the government should not pay hospitals for any costs incurred by uninsured patients.

A majority of Republicans (70%) and a plurality of independents (50%) support funding for uninsured patients living in the U.S. legally. In contrast, a majority of Democrats (59%) support federal funding for all uninsured patients, regardless of their legal status.

Independents Drive Approval of ACA to New High of 57%

Americans' approval of the Affordable Care Act has risen to a new high, fueled by increased support among political independents.

news.gallup.com

It's a poll that tells us a lot about who we are and yet leaves our attitudes as a nation open to interpretation. Perhaps raising more questions than it answers.

Are the 73% who favor using taxpayer money to pay the medical bills for the uninsured closet socialists when it comes to medical treatment for the needy? Have we become so enamored with tribal politics that it influences how we think our fellow human beings should be treated when it comes to their health? How should we balance matters of morality with fiscal responsibility? Is there a better way to design the healthcare delivery system of the country?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Americans. Not illegals. With what illegals cost, not paying their bills might make covering the expenses of Americans actually feasible.
Deport, deport, DEPORT.

 

[August West]

First tier nations have healthcare for all.

 

[shockedcanadian]

First tier nations have healthcare for all.

It's not always as it seems though I assure you.

The Chosen Ones decide who lives and who dies in universal healthcare. The passion in keeping you alive as you are older is significantly lower.

 

[kyzr]

That OP poll doesn't address the fact that the ACA is unaffordable, nor the fact that the $38T debt means that we can't afford more entitlements. How much would paying hospital bills cost anyway OP?

Another option is for the government to pay the "employer" portion of healthcare insurance so all "ACA" people would pay approximately the same for the same coverage to the same selection of health insurance companies as the employed.

 

[berg80]

First tier nations have healthcare for all.

I don't see the US going in that direction. The ACA was the ham handed result, due to R obstruction, of a kind of private/public partnership to increase the number of insured Americans. R's have tried to kill it ever since. Largely because it had the potential for success in both getting more people insured and slowing medical cost inflation. Also because it has gained in popularity. Making their opposition to it a political vulnerability.

 

[Darkwind]

First tier nations have healthcare for all.

That does not make them first tier nations. In fact, it lowers their status.

 

[berg80]

That OP poll doesn't address the fact that the ACA is unaffordable

Health insurance premiums continue to rise across the board. A proven solution to that problem is a "Medicare for all" type model, employed around the world yielding better health outcomes at a lower cost, which R's refuse to consider.

 

[berg80]

That does not make them first tier nations. In fact, it lowers their status.

How does providing better health outcomes at a lower per capita cost lower their status?

 

[DGS49]

This points to the essence of the (Un)Affordable Care Act. That law ("We will have to pass it to see what's in it") forbade health insurers from (a) refusing to cover people with "pre-existing conditions," or (b) penalizing such people with significantly higher premiums than the healthier General Public. The result was including those poor bastards in the same insurance pool as "everyone else," thus increasing everyone's rates. The ACA credits are Democrats' attempt to hide the total failure of ACA to reduce insurance rates, as President O'Bama promised when it was being debated. This is why the Democrats today are FRANTIC to keep those credits in place, at least through the 2026 mid-terms.

Republicans were appalled at the stupidity of ACA, as well as the fact that is is blatantly unconstitutional, but could not come up with an alternative (other than the status quo ante) because the American people LIKE the fact that people with pre-existing conditions are now protected from - shall we say - bankruptcy without those protections.

The only "solution" now would be to establish a separate program for the people with pre-existing conditions where the Feds "backstop" insurers, guaranteeing that they won't lose mountains of money on those people, and recognizing that there are more and more of them all the time. Indeed such a separate program would be one of the infamous "black holes" in the Federal budget, providing unlimited funds to unlimited numbers of people and expanding every year. But THAT program would also be unconstitutional - Congress has no Article I "power" to get into the health insurance business - which is why the Republicans have declined to even propose it.

What is needed is a Constitutional Amendment giving Congress the power to create an American version of socialized medicine. In fact, ACA was the Democrats' attempt to devise a system so horrible that the General Public would finally want such an abomination.

Is anyone even suggesting the promulgation of that Constitutional Amendment? No. Not even the King of Unconstitutional bullshit, Senator Sanders. What does that tell you?

I'm not sure.

 

[berg80]

That OP poll doesn't address the fact that the ACA is unaffordable, nor the fact that the $38T debt means that we can't afford more entitlements. How much would paying hospital bills cost anyway OP?

Another option is for the government to pay the "employer" portion of healthcare insurance so all "ACA" people would pay approximately the same for the same coverage to the same selection of health insurance companies as the employed.

And if an employed US citizen who works for a company not offering health insurance and not paying enough for the employee to afford a private plan shows up at a hospital in need of treatment..........what then?

 

[berg80]

This points to the essence of the (Un)Affordable Care Act. That law ("We will have to pass it to see what's in it") forbade health insurers from (a) refusing to cover people with "pre-existing conditions," or (b) penalizing such people with significantly higher premiums than the healthier General Public. The result was including those poor bastards in the same insurance pool as "everyone else," thus increasing everyone's rates.

But not increasing everyone's rates if the design of the plan to get more people, healthy and otherwise, in to the pool of the insured had not been sabotaged. Both by R's and by people gaming the system by buying an ACA policy, using it for a few months to get health needs addressed, then stopping paying the premiums. Eventually causing insurance companies offering ACA plans to raise rates in order to cover their losses from the previous year.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Americans Support Federal Funding for Hospital Bills of Uninsured, With Limits​

A separate nationally representative web survey using Gallup’s probability-based panel, conducted Nov. 3-16, tested the public’s views on whether the federal government should provide funding to hospitals to cover medical expenses for uninsured Americans. When asked simply if the government should provide such funding, 73% of Americans say it should, and 25% say it should not. While majorities of Democrats (93%) and independents (78%) agree that the government should pay for the care of uninsured patients, a majority of Republicans (53%) disagree.

Americans have a different perspective on covering hospitals’ costs for the uninsured when the question specifies the residency status of those patients. When asked to choose from three options, a slim majority of U.S. adults (51%) favor federal funding to cover medical expenses for uninsured legal residents of the U.S., while 33% think it should cover costs for all uninsured patients, including those living in the country illegally. Another 14% of Americans believe the government should not pay hospitals for any costs incurred by uninsured patients.

A majority of Republicans (70%) and a plurality of independents (50%) support funding for uninsured patients living in the U.S. legally. In contrast, a majority of Democrats (59%) support federal funding for all uninsured patients, regardless of their legal status.

Independents Drive Approval of ACA to New High of 57%

Americans' approval of the Affordable Care Act has risen to a new high, fueled by increased support among political independents.

news.gallup.com

It's a poll that tells us a lot about who we are and yet leaves our attitudes as a nation open to interpretation. Perhaps raising more questions than it answers.

Are the 73% who favor using taxpayer money to pay the medical bills for the uninsured closet socialists when it comes to medical treatment for the needy? Have we become so enamored with tribal politics that it influences how we think our fellow human beings should be treated when it comes to their health? How should we balance matters of morality with fiscal responsibility? Is there a better way to design the healthcare delivery system of the country?

Why is this even an issue?

The "Affordable" Care Act was passed more than a decade and a half ago.

WTF?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I am not a sheeple. I do not react in terms of "we" and neither do I react in terms of "should".

Instead, I am a sentient individual, so I think in terms of "I" and I think in terms of "do".

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The ACA is a broken program and it needs to be completely trashed. All we are doing is plugging leaks on the Titanic.

 

[Darkwind]

How does providing better health outcomes at a lower per capita cost lower their status?

They are less free.

The top metric is liberty and freedom from an over-reaching/, overbearing government.

A government in charge of an individual's health is a tyranny.

Simply because they have a large GDP, or can afford modern infrastruction does NOT make them a First Tier Nation.

 

[berg80]

Why is this even an issue?

The "Affordable" Care Act was passed more than a decade and a half ago.

WTF?

Do you find the humanitarian impulse of 73% of Americans saying they want taxpayer money to cover medical expenses for a hospital visit for the uninsured troubling?

 

[berg80]

They are less free.

So in your opinion getting better health outcomes at a lower per capita cost makes people feel less free? How "free" do you think Americans who can't afford health insurance feel?

 

[berg80]

The ACA is a broken program

Why single out the ACA when the entire US healthcare system is broken? If it wasn't rising ACA premiums would not be such an issue.

 

[westwall]

First tier nations have healthcare for all.

Suuuure they do. Assisted suicide is the preferred treatment in Canada for chronic diseases now.