PDA

View Full Version : How would you fix healthcare?



donttread
05-05-2017, 07:13 AM
The ACA has flaws but should not be replaced until we have a better solution. Like it or not, millions of uninsured Americans wil ensure that we never catch up to the rest of the "free world" in SOL, "Happyiness scales" and education.
A country this rich should not have that many uninsured people. We had , I believe , over 40 million at one time.
Such a mumber speaks to the middle class slowly becoming extinct.

But what would you do about healthcare?

How much individual responsibility for healthcare cost should be assigned based upon the person's lifestyle choices such as smoking, over drinking, over eating, being too sedentary, the type two diabetic that eats too much sugar or white bread , etc.?

Common
05-05-2017, 07:31 AM
All americans and illegal immigrants and refugees had healthcare before the ACA. The ACA does the same thing and costs a fortune more.

No medical facility could turn anyone away whether or not they had insurance or were indigent. There was medicaid before the ACA

What the aca did was give many free healthcare and made everyone else pay more. Then theres those stuck in the middle that can only afford one level of health care and incur huge copays and premiums and cant afford to get sick anyway and dont qualify for subisidies.

Theres many drs wont accept most ACA plans

FindersKeepers
05-05-2017, 07:36 AM
The ACA has flaws but should not be replaced until we have a better solution. Like it or not, millions of uninsured Americans wil ensure that we never catch up to the rest of the "free world" in SOL, "Happyiness scales" and education.
A country this rich should not have that many uninsured people. We had , I believe , over 40 million at one time.
Such a mumber speaks to the middle class slowly becoming extinct.

But what would you do about healthcare?

How much individual responsibility for healthcare cost should be assigned based upon the person's lifestyle choices such as smoking, over drinking, over eating, being too sedentary, the type two diabetic that eats too much sugar or white bread , etc.?

I would institute an OPTIONAL single-payer plan that anyone could buy into. No one would need to but it would cut out the private insurance industry. It would be like Medicare for the masses, should they choose to buy in. Not Medicaid. Medicare. I would allow anyone who so chooses to keep their private insurance policies -- their choice after all. I would also encourage doctors to accept half-price for their services for cash customers. I would not allow private insurers to handle any part of a national plan. Premiums for the national plan would be a fraction of private coverage premiums, which would eventually force the insurance companies to become competitive and reduce rates. Or, go out of business, but, hey, that's capitalism. Compete or go away.

The national plan would probably be relatively small to begin with, but citizens would soon realize that they were throwing money away with private insureres and they'd likely switch.

No mandates. Just a low-cost option. Nothing more is needed.

And, no, I wouldn't punish people who were fat, etc., but I'd let doctors decide who gets to be on the top of a transplant recipient list.

Crepitus
05-05-2017, 07:43 AM
Remove the insurance companies from the equation.

Common
05-05-2017, 07:48 AM
Remove the insurance companies from the equation.
Sure thing crepitus and put what a million people out of work instantly and of course and all the insurers and all their investors. That is not something you can do overnight

Green Arrow
05-05-2017, 08:11 AM
Scrap it and go to single-payer.

Adelaide
05-05-2017, 09:06 AM
Well, this isn't going to popular...

First, I support the notion that states should be able to make their own decisions and exercise their power appropriately. Ideally, referendums could be held, but I would support state-level universal health care but keep the private system. Having both is possible.

Quebec and Alberta in Canada both have a mixed system, and it seems like a reasonable compromise. At the federal level, I might support what Canada did which was to identify 5 goals of health care (including access to it) and then each province or territory meets those goals however they want by creating their own programs. If they fail to meet the goals, the federal government simply fines them by not giving x amount of federal dollars that would have normally gone to the province - Alberta gets dinged the most, if I remember right. But by personalizing, they determine what they can afford. In Ontario, dental and optometry are not covered (unless you have a special medical condition, like glaucoma) and prescriptions are not covered, although everyone under 25 will now be getting free prescriptions. To fill the gap, employers offer supplemental insurance that you can buy into which covers things the province won't cover, and often will also cover "elective" things like massages, chiropractors, eastern medicine, and so forth.

It's a fairly good system in terms of set-up. They need an overhaul to get rid of inefficiencies and save some money, but the general idea of a federal law with "goals" and provinces designing their own systems uniquely to suit those goals seems reasonable.

MisterVeritis
05-05-2017, 09:23 AM
Am I the remaining sane person?

Remove the government's heavy hand from the healthcare insurance market completely. Or rewrite the Constitution to make some of us responsible for providing all of what some of you want.

Cletus
05-05-2017, 10:11 AM
Get the government completely out of the health care business. Let the market dictate. Make people take responsibility for their own health care.

decedent
05-05-2017, 10:14 AM
Single payer, like all the countries with the highest standard of living enjoy. It's simple, effective, and far cheaper.

Cletus
05-05-2017, 10:15 AM
Do you think health care is an entitlement?

Do you believe you have a right to it at the expense of others?

suds00
05-05-2017, 10:30 AM
unless everyone can perform at the same high level,for whatever reason,we need a system that can assist people in a dignified way.

Cletus
05-05-2017, 10:32 AM
unless everyone can perform at the same high level,for whatever reason,we need a system that can assist people in a dignified way.

Do you think it part of the legitimate role of government to make sure you have health care?

MisterVeritis
05-05-2017, 11:50 AM
I would institute an OPTIONAL single-payer plan that anyone could buy into. No one would need to but it would cut out the private insurance industry. It would be like Medicare for the masses, should they choose to buy in. Not Medicaid. Medicare. I would allow anyone who so chooses to keep their private insurance policies -- their choice after all. I would also encourage doctors to accept half-price for their services for cash customers. I would not allow private insurers to handle any part of a national plan. Premiums for the national plan would be a fraction of private coverage premiums, which would eventually force the insurance companies to become competitive and reduce rates. Or, go out of business, but, hey, that's capitalism. Compete or go away.

The national plan would probably be relatively small to begin with, but citizens would soon realize that they were throwing money away with private insureres and they'd likely switch.

No mandates. Just a low-cost option. Nothing more is needed.

And, no, I wouldn't punish people who were fat, etc., but I'd let doctors decide who gets to be on the top of a transplant recipient list.
Having accepted Marxism why stop half way?

MisterVeritis
05-05-2017, 11:51 AM
Single payer, like all the countries with the highest standard of living enjoy. It's simple, effective, and far cheaper.
Then move to a country that has it. Do not destroy this country.

Green Arrow
05-05-2017, 12:45 PM
Well, this isn't going to popular...

First, I support the notion that states should be able to make their own decisions and exercise their power appropriately. Ideally, referendums could be held, but I would support state-level universal health care but keep the private system. Having both is possible.

Quebec and Alberta in Canada both have a mixed system, and it seems like a reasonable compromise. At the federal level, I might support what Canada did which was to identify 5 goals of health care (including access to it) and then each province or territory meets those goals however they want by creating their own programs. If they fail to meet the goals, the federal government simply fines them by not giving x amount of federal dollars that would have normally gone to the province - Alberta gets dinged the most, if I remember right. But by personalizing, they determine what they can afford. In Ontario, dental and optometry are not covered (unless you have a special medical condition, like glaucoma) and prescriptions are not covered, although everyone under 25 will now be getting free prescriptions. To fill the gap, employers offer supplemental insurance that you can buy into which covers things the province won't cover, and often will also cover "elective" things like massages, chiropractors, eastern medicine, and so forth.

It's a fairly good system in terms of set-up. They need an overhaul to get rid of inefficiencies and save some money, but the general idea of a federal law with "goals" and provinces designing their own systems uniquely to suit those goals seems reasonable.

I would support that. It's an equitable compromise.

Common Sense
05-05-2017, 12:49 PM
Do you think health care is an entitlement?

Do you believe you have a right to it at the expense of others?

Do you think access to police and firefighters is?

If you don't pay taxes or pay less taxes than someone else, should you not be afforded police services or firefighting services?

FindersKeepers
05-05-2017, 01:07 PM
Having accepted Marxism why stop half way?

We're not starting from zero here. We don't have a clean slate. The fiscally conservative thing to do is to remedy the situation in a way that benefits the citizens while reducing the costs to the taxpayer.

We have an enemy in our midst. We have a hijacker. Someone has hijacked the American healthcare industry, driving up costs for all citizens and pocketing billions of hard-earned American dollars.

The insurance industry.

The insurance industry is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

We could easily go back to personal responsibility for healthcare if the insurance industry were banned. That would be my first wish. Ban the wolf in sheep's clothing that is leaching the very blood from Americans and letting them die.

This is an enemy in our midst. Nevermind that insurance is based on collectivism to begin with, so many Americans have been brainwashed into thinking they must be insured....or else! Eeek!

Terrorists come here and blow up Americans and we know where to point the finger -- directly at the terrorists.

But, the insurance industry rapes the citizenry and drives healthcare costs out of range for many Americans, who likewise die, and yet the brainwashed do not see the wolf at the door.

The government exists to protect the citizens from enemies within and without. Nothing is more important right now to protecting the citizens than to get rid of the wolf who is making it impossible for so many to get healthcare.

Call that Marxism if you wish, but, in reality, it's something that should have been done decades ago.

Cletus
05-05-2017, 01:17 PM
Do you think access to police and firefighters is?

If you don't pay taxes or pay less taxes than someone else, should you not be afforded police services or firefighting services?

Not a valid comparison.

Do you really need me to explain why?

Common Sense
05-05-2017, 01:45 PM
Not a valid comparison.

Do you really need me to explain why?

Go for it.

Because they are necessities? I'd love to hear how you think they are different.

Cletus
05-05-2017, 01:59 PM
Go for it.

Okay. Police and Fire services are necessary for social order. If your houses catches fire, not only are you threatened, but the entire community could be. The same is true of law enforcement.

Paying for you to see a doctor is not.
Some communities depend on county or state law enforcement because they don't have their own police departments. Some have volunteer fire departments. Some are even going to a pay as you go system for emergency services. There is no valid comparison between police and fire services and some kind of universal health care program.

Green Arrow
05-05-2017, 03:27 PM
Okay. Police and Fire services are necessary for social order. If your houses catches fire, not only are you threatened, but the entire community could be. The same is true of law enforcement.

Paying for you to see a doctor is not.
Some communities depend on county or state law enforcement because they don't have their own police departments. Some have volunteer fire departments. Some are even going to a pay as you go system for emergency services. There is no valid comparison between police and fire services and some kind of universal health care program.

Lack of healthcare doesn't potentially threaten the health of the community?

Captain Obvious
05-05-2017, 04:17 PM
Step one: overthrow the government

Cthulhu
05-05-2017, 05:23 PM
The ACA has flaws but should not be replaced until we have a better solution. Like it or not, millions of uninsured Americans wil ensure that we never catch up to the rest of the "free world" in SOL, "Happyiness scales" and education.
A country this rich should not have that many uninsured people. We had , I believe , over 40 million at one time.
Such a mumber speaks to the middle class slowly becoming extinct.

But what would you do about healthcare?

How much individual responsibility for healthcare cost should be assigned based upon the person's lifestyle choices such as smoking, over drinking, over eating, being too sedentary, the type two diabetic that eats too much sugar or white bread , etc.?
How to fix healthcare?

Remove as many barriers between patient, doctor, and treatment as possible.

And I would replace all vaccines and flu shots for Democrats and Republicans with 10 CC's of diesel fuel.

Then let nature take its course.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Cthulhu
05-05-2017, 05:26 PM
Single payer, like all the countries with the highest standard of living enjoy. It's simple, effective, and far cheaper.
They can only afford it (not really, but it's fun to pretend) because they have next to nothing in a military budget.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

MisterVeritis
05-05-2017, 05:52 PM
unless everyone can perform at the same high level,for whatever reason,we need a system that can assist people in a dignified way.
Each of you leftists could join together, pool your money and save the world. Why don't you?

MisterVeritis
05-05-2017, 05:53 PM
We're not starting from zero here. We don't have a clean slate.
Having accepted the Marxist paradigm you can see nothing else.

We can have a clean slate. We can return to the Constitution.

MisterVeritis
05-05-2017, 05:56 PM
Call that Marxism if you wish, but, in reality, it's something that should have been done decades ago.
It is Marxism. If you want to see our future look to Cuba and Venezuela.

Or return to liberty under the Constitution.

MisterVeritis
05-05-2017, 05:57 PM
Lack of healthcare doesn't potentially threaten the health of the community?
No.

Dr. Who
05-05-2017, 06:01 PM
They can only afford it (not really, but it's fun to pretend) because they have next to nothing in a military budget.

Sent from my evil cell phone.
Begs the question why death and destruction is an appropriate ear mark in the budget but health and happiness is an inappropriate earmark. You cannot possibly believe that anything in the ME has ever actually threatened human lives in America on a historical basis. Yet trillions of dollars have been spent on geopolitical manipulations that have cost both American and middle eastern lives and to what end? Who has benefited? Certainly not the people in the ME, nor American soldiers who have died or been maimed for life nor the American public who are now under threat of terrorism which heretofore was not an issue. The only beneficiaries have been the MIC, big oil and Israel. Had a fraction of those trillions gone into a sustainable health care system, there would be many people who would still be alive or not rendered destitute over health care expenses and there would be a lot of vets who actually received the kind of health care treatment that they should have received.

Instead the cost of becoming a medical professional has become so expensive that doctors have to charge exorbitant rates to pay back student loans and insurers have become symbiotic partners in the rendering of health care into a product that can only be afforded by the winners of the contest of survival of the fittest, with big pharma adding insult to injury. Freedom and the pursuit of happiness means very little if you don't have your health. If there are a dozen middlemen taking a piece of the action in the big business now known as health care, you can be sure that the cost of health care will more than triple and it has. Add to that the same scenario with privately owned hospitals and you have a health care disaster in the making. Just consider how many times a year you use your health care insurance vs how often you use your personal lines insurance. If you are very lucky you can go decades never having to make either an auto or homeowner's claim. Can you say the same about health care?

Crepitus
05-05-2017, 07:13 PM
Sure thing crepitus and put what a million people out of work instantly and of course and all the insurers and all their investors. That is not something you can do overnight

But they not only don't contribute, they are a drag on the whole system. Retrain them to do something productive.

Crepitus
05-05-2017, 07:17 PM
We're not starting from zero here. We don't have a clean slate. The fiscally conservative thing to do is to remedy the situation in a way that benefits the citizens while reducing the costs to the taxpayer.

We have an enemy in our midst. We have a hijacker. Someone has hijacked the American healthcare industry, driving up costs for all citizens and pocketing billions of hard-earned American dollars.

The insurance industry.

The insurance industry is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

We could easily go back to personal responsibility for healthcare if the insurance industry were banned. That would be my first wish. Ban the wolf in sheep's clothing that is leaching the very blood from Americans and letting them die.

This is an enemy in our midst. Nevermind that insurance is based on collectivism to begin with, so many Americans have been brainwashed into thinking they must be insured....or else! Eeek!

Terrorists come here and blow up Americans and we know where to point the finger -- directly at the terrorists.

But, the insurance industry rapes the citizenry and drives healthcare costs out of range for many Americans, who likewise die, and yet the brainwashed do not see the wolf at the door.

The government exists to protect the citizens from enemies within and without. Nothing is more important right now to protecting the citizens than to get rid of the wolf who is making it impossible for so many to get healthcare.

Call that Marxism if you wish, but, in reality, it's something that should have been done decades ago.

I agree 100%.







And BTW I am just as surprised as you!

Peter1469
05-05-2017, 07:18 PM
Get the government completely out of the health care business. Let the market dictate. Make people take responsibility for their own health care.


This with a plan modeled off Remote Area Medical to provide cheap but quality health care for those who can't afford the marketplace.

It would be similar to how the US military prepares troops for deployment. It works. And it is very cost effective.

Crepitus
05-05-2017, 07:18 PM
Step one: overthrow the government

https://spectator.imgix.net/content/uploads/2016/04/HiRes1.jpg?auto=compress,enhance,format,redeye&crop=faces,entropy,edges&fit=crop&w=620&h=413

FindersKeepers
05-06-2017, 04:17 AM
Having accepted the Marxist paradigm you can see nothing else.

We can have a clean slate. We can return to the Constitution.

That basically says nothing. You cannot explain how the nation can go backward (which it can't) so you just state that with no supporting platform.

The simple fact is -- the enemy within is the insurance industry -- until you're prepared to deal with that domestic enemy, you can't be a true advocate for the Constitution.

FindersKeepers
05-06-2017, 04:18 AM
I agree 100%.







And BTW I am just as surprised as you!


LOL -- thank you! :smiley:

midcan5
05-06-2017, 06:17 AM
The idea behind insurance is a shared responsibility, and while some insurers may be crooks, pooled resources work best for all. Social security is a example, there are lots of old folks out there living OK on SS, especially those who worked in businesses that failed to pay pensions etc. After WWII there was a corporate attitude that provided for its workers, that value has gone out the window with constant quarterly stock levels and other valuation. I know families who have great healthcare through their employer forever while new hires are not so lucky. Same for pensions and other perks, somewhere along the road greed took over business and cost became a problem and not a benefit. Look for instance at executive pay, if you can find a moral reason people should make millions while they lay off and off shore, let me know. Bottom line mentality is our devil today.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-necessity-of-universal-health-care

"So consider: elderly people of limited means in the United States who are dependent on Medicare for their basic well-being—there are tens of millions of them—are rather clearly “vulnerable people.” Why, then, is it not equally problematic when a powerful congressman, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, advocates effectively eliminating the program that benefits these vulnerable people, indeed, keeps them alive? “Hatred,” after all, is not the issue as Waldron says, and no one, I assume, thinks Rep. Ryan “hates” the elderly or the poor. He may simply be stupid, or in thrall to an ideology, or defective in empathetic capacity, or beholden to special interests; whatever the explanation, it is clear that his proposals, if enacted, would eventually result in elderly people in need being unable to afford essential healthcare." Brian Leiter review of 'The Harm in Hate Speech' by Jeremy Waldron

Peter1469
05-06-2017, 06:25 AM
The insurance industry does what it is designed to do just fine. Provide access to healthcare for the majority of Americans. But insurance is a way to manage risk. It is not a maintenance plan. For those who are not suited for insurance, the nation can, and does, have other programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Highrisk pools at the state level help as well, although I note that several "news" articles have attacked them over the last two days.

Personally, the best thing for those who can afford them are the old catastrophic coverage. You pay the first 10K in a year then everything else is covered. Very low premium. Obama outlawed them. And his scheme has fairly high upfront costs - like around $5K but very high premiums. A bad trade.

The old catastrophic plans encourage the free market to work. People paying their doctors directly will force prices down and quality up. Especially now with the Internet and reviews. "Doc X overcharges and is an a-hole" could kill Doc X's ability to earn a living. "Doc Y provides quality care for a fair price" could have lines of people at her door.

Robo
05-06-2017, 10:50 AM
The ACA has flaws but should not be replaced until we have a better solution. Like it or not, millions of uninsured Americans wil ensure that we never catch up to the rest of the "free world" in SOL, "Happyiness scales" and education.
A country this rich should not have that many uninsured people. We had , I believe , over 40 million at one time.
Such a mumber speaks to the middle class slowly becoming extinct.

But what would you do about healthcare?

How much individual responsibility for healthcare cost should be assigned based upon the person's lifestyle choices such as smoking, over drinking, over eating, being too sedentary, the type two diabetic that eats too much sugar or white bread , etc.?

Return healthcare to the States. Allow the several States to be the laboratory for healthcare and prove what kind of healthcare works best in each individual State and thereby America. Each State would learn from the other States what works well and what doesn't. That system is what our founders envisioned and is what amendment 10 to our Constitution mandates.

A limited central government is our founding principle and our heritage. We ignore it, abuse it and violate it at our peril.

Kalkin
05-06-2017, 11:14 AM
The ACA has flaws but should not be replaced until we have a better solution.
Disagree. The ACA is a marxist wealth redistribution scam disguised as a healthcare bill. It should be repealed entirely and replaced with absolutely nothing on the federal level. If individual states want to enact these types of things, fine, per the 10th amendment.

Kalkin
05-06-2017, 11:18 AM
The idea behind insurance is a shared responsibility,
Actually, The idea behind insurance is a voluntarily shared responsibility. You forgot that crucial word.

Kalkin
05-06-2017, 11:24 AM
We're not starting from zero here. We don't have a clean slate. The fiscally conservative thing to do is to remedy the situation in a way that benefits the citizens while reducing the costs to the taxpayer.
We have an enemy in our midst. We have a hijacker. Someone has hijacked the American healthcare industry, driving up costs for all citizens and pocketing billions of hard-earned American dollars.
The insurance industry.
The insurance industry is the wolf in sheep's clothing.
We could easily go back to personal responsibility for healthcare if the insurance industry were banned. That would be my first wish. Ban the wolf in sheep's clothing that is leaching the very blood from Americans and letting them die.
This is an enemy in our midst. Nevermind that insurance is based on collectivism to begin with, so many Americans have been brainwashed into thinking they must be insured....or else! Eeek!
Terrorists come here and blow up Americans and we know where to point the finger -- directly at the terrorists.
But, the insurance industry rapes the citizenry and drives healthcare costs out of range for many Americans, who likewise die, and yet the brainwashed do not see the wolf at the door.
The government exists to protect the citizens from enemies within and without. Nothing is more important right now to protecting the citizens than to get rid of the wolf who is making it impossible for so many to get healthcare.
Call that Marxism if you wish, but, in reality, it's something that should have been done decades ago.
The enemy in our midst is the federal government. Insurance companies were just an option for people until the government made purchasing their product mandatory. Are Rolex watch dealers the enemy? No, because you can choose not to own their product. If the government forces you to purchase a Rolex, it's the government that is your oppressor, not the watch dealer.

Green Arrow
05-06-2017, 11:45 AM
Disagree. The ACA is a marxist wealth redistribution scam disguised as a healthcare bill. It should be repealed entirely and replaced with absolutely nothing on the federal level. If individual states want to enact these types of things, fine, per the 10th amendment.

If you think the ACA is Marxist, you need to do some studying on what Marxism actually is.

Kalkin
05-06-2017, 11:53 AM
If you think the ACA is Marxist, you need to do some studying on what Marxism actually is.
Incorrect. A central tenet of marxism is "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs". When government forces some to pay more, so others can be subsidized to one degree or another, it is marxism. Period. Instead of studying the words in books, you need to actually think about what they mean in today's context.

Green Arrow
05-06-2017, 12:20 PM
Incorrect. A central tenet of marxism is "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs". When government forces some to pay more, so others can be subsidized to one degree or another, it is marxism. Period. Instead of studying the words in books, you need to actually think about what they mean in today's context.

Actually, it's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Thank you for admitting that you adhere to Orwellian Newspeak.

FindersKeepers
05-06-2017, 03:01 PM
The enemy in our midst is the federal government. Insurance companies were just an option for people until the government made purchasing their product mandatory. Are Rolex watch dealers the enemy? No, because you can choose not to own their product. If the government forces you to purchase a Rolex, it's the government that is your oppressor, not the watch dealer.

When we follow the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have to be the enemy. You're right, however, that it certainly took on the role of enemy when it mandated that the citizens purchase from a private entity. That was beyond bad.

The insurance industry, however, is the bully at the schoolyard gate. The one who takes the children's lunch money under the guise of "not beating them up" or offering a bit of protection against the competing bully. Either way, the student loses.

So it is with insurance. It's an alluring slippery slope. Back before insurers, people called out doc, who came in his buggy to deliver a baby or remove buckshot from a hind end, and the patients paid him in chickens, a cow, sometimes money. But, they were responsible for their own care. Sometimes, neighbors would kick in some to help the local widow pay her bill. It's what humans naturally do.

Then, someone came up with the idea that if they pooled their funds, they would have a "kitty" from which to draw when medical expenses arose. Sounded good -- sounded like a plan. It WAS good. Very good. In fact, that's exactly the system Mennonites still use today to pay the bills of their members. It works great. But, here's the kicker -- no one makes a dime of profit off the medical kitty collecting or disbursing. The Mennonites, many of whom live in my neck of the woods, are exempt from Obamacare, since they can demonstrate that they self-ensure.

Back to the original story though. In that story, someone decided to turn a profit at the expense of the people paying the premiums. The insurer. In centuries gone by -- they would have been called "money changers."

Once the insurers had a large enough pool of "clients," they began working with the doctors to set prices for specific treatments. Whereas a doctor might only have gotten a chicken for delivering a baby from a non-insured, the insurers offered him more money. Of course, they also drove up his fees by charging him an astronomical amount to insure him against negligence suits. Suddenly, the ordinary citizen with the chicken or the cow is getting squeezed out. The insurers are turning a profit, and in doing so, are artificially inflating the cost of healthcare.

What we are seeing now -- today -- are incredibly high healthcare and insurance premium costs because we have to support not ONE industry (the health industry), but we must also now support the INSURANCE industry.

We cannot fiscally do that.

And, we should not even try.

Doctors have expressed their desire to treat all patients in need. The insurance industry has driven up the cost of care to such an extent that many are no longer able to afford care. There's the enemy of the American people. A private industry that has taken healthcare out of the range of many citizens who are happy to pay -- if they can.

We will not solve this until the insurers are gone. We cannot support two entire industries.

Now then, doctors know this. They often charge patients who don't have insurance much less than those who do. And, it makes sense.

But, something else is also happening.

Some doctors are ONLY taking cash payments. They're not seeing patients who are insured.

That is the answer. That is the only answer.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/these-doctors-accept-only-cash#1
http://time.com/4649914/why-the-doctor-takes-only-cash/
https://www.thehappymd.com/blog/bid/290718/Medical-Bills-Going-Down-If-You-Pay-Cash-Way-Down
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-insurance-these-doctors-accept-only-cash_us_58c06962e4b070e55af9eaf1

The sooner we can kick the insurance companies to the curb, the sooner we can get back to a healthcare system that is affordable for MOST. Some people will always need a little help, and that's what private charities are there for.

The problem is -- we're linked into the insurance industry at present, so we need a way to break free. That's going to take a move from the government, like it or not. Not Obamacare. Not Trumpcare. Something that runs the insurers out of business. It's the only way.

Peter1469
05-06-2017, 03:30 PM
That is why I liked the old catastrophic plans. They didn't kick in until you spent ~$10K in a year.



When we follow the Constitution, the federal government doesn't have to be the enemy. You're right, however, that it certainly took on the role of enemy when it mandated that the citizens purchase from a private entity. That was beyond bad.

The insurance industry, however, is the bully at the schoolyard gate. The one who takes the children's lunch money under the guise of "not beating them up" or offering a bit of protection against the competing bully. Either way, the student loses.

So it is with insurance. It's an alluring slippery slope. Back before insurers, people called out doc, who came in his buggy to deliver a baby or remove buckshot from a hind end, and the patients paid him in chickens, a cow, sometimes money. But, they were responsible for their own care. Sometimes, neighbors would kick in some to help the local widow pay her bill. It's what humans naturally do.

Then, someone came up with the idea that if they pooled their funds, they would have a "kitty" from which to draw when medical expenses arose. Sounded good -- sounded like a plan. It WAS good. Very good. In fact, that's exactly the system Mennonites still use today to pay the bills of their members. It works great. But, here's the kicker -- no one makes a dime of profit off the medical kitty collecting or disbursing. The Mennonites, many of whom live in my neck of the woods, are exempt from Obamacare, since they can demonstrate that they self-ensure.

Back to the original story though. In that story, someone decided to turn a profit at the expense of the people paying the premiums. The insurer. In centuries gone by -- they would have been called "money changers."

Once the insurers had a large enough pool of "clients," they began working with the doctors to set prices for specific treatments. Whereas a doctor might only have gotten a chicken for delivering a baby from a non-insured, the insurers offered him more money. Of course, they also drove up his fees by charging him an astronomical amount to insure him against negligence suits. Suddenly, the ordinary citizen with the chicken or the cow is getting squeezed out. The insurers are turning a profit, and in doing so, are artificially inflating the cost of healthcare.

What we are seeing now -- today -- are incredibly high healthcare and insurance premium costs because we have to support not ONE industry (the health industry), but we must also now support the INSURANCE industry.

We cannot fiscally do that.

And, we should not even try.

Doctors have expressed their desire to treat all patients in need. The insurance industry has driven up the cost of care to such an extent that many are no longer able to afford care. There's the enemy of the American people. A private industry that has taken healthcare out of the range of many citizens who are happy to pay -- if they can.

We will not solve this until the insurers are gone. We cannot support two entire industries.

Now then, doctors know this. They often charge patients who don't have insurance much less than those who do. And, it makes sense.

But, something else is also happening.

Some doctors are ONLY taking cash payments. They're not seeing patients who are insured.

That is the answer. That is the only answer.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/these-doctors-accept-only-cash#1
http://time.com/4649914/why-the-doctor-takes-only-cash/
https://www.thehappymd.com/blog/bid/290718/Medical-Bills-Going-Down-If-You-Pay-Cash-Way-Down
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-insurance-these-doctors-accept-only-cash_us_58c06962e4b070e55af9eaf1

The sooner we can kick the insurance companies to the curb, the sooner we can get back to a healthcare system that is affordable for MOST. Some people will always need a little help, and that's what private charities are there for.

The problem is -- we're linked into the insurance industry at present, so we need a way to break free. That's going to take a move from the government, like it or not. Not Obamacare. Not Trumpcare. Something that runs the insurers out of business. It's the only way.

The Xl
05-06-2017, 03:35 PM
The ability to buy insurance from anywhere with a state solution for those that are absolutely dirt poor. It's a reasonable and practical compromise between the free market and the state, imo. Won't happen because the insurance industry owns Congress, and their collusion is responsible for Lord knows how many deaths and bankruptcies.

texan
05-06-2017, 07:55 PM
I would institute an OPTIONAL single-payer plan that anyone could buy into. No one would need to but it would cut out the private insurance industry. It would be like Medicare for the masses, should they choose to buy in. Not Medicaid. Medicare. I would allow anyone who so chooses to keep their private insurance policies -- their choice after all. I would also encourage doctors to accept half-price for their services for cash customers. I would not allow private insurers to handle any part of a national plan. Premiums for the national plan would be a fraction of private coverage premiums, which would eventually force the insurance companies to become competitive and reduce rates. Or, go out of business, but, hey, that's capitalism. Compete or go away.

The national plan would probably be relatively small to begin with, but citizens would soon realize that they were throwing money away with private insureres and they'd likely switch.

No mandates. Just a low-cost option. Nothing more is needed.

And, no, I wouldn't punish people who were fat, etc., but I'd let doctors decide who gets to be on the top of a transplant recipient list.

Like the idea.

Dr. Who
05-06-2017, 08:27 PM
That is why I liked the old catastrophic plans. They didn't kick in until you spent ~$10K in a year.
$10K is an enormous amount of money for many families especially when the average family income in America is $50K.

Common
05-06-2017, 08:38 PM
$10K is an enormous amount of money for many families especially when the average family income in America is $50K.
True, but obamacare was no better for those making 50k a year, Obamacare premiums for them were higher for the same coverage, with more deductables and higher copays and less choice of DRs

Peter1469
05-06-2017, 08:40 PM
$10K is an enormous amount of money for many families especially when the average family income in America is $50K.

The old catastrophic plans were not mandatory.

Peter1469
05-06-2017, 08:41 PM
True, but obamacare was no better for those making 50k a year, Obamacare premiums for them were higher for the same coverage, with more deductables and higher copays and less choice of DRs

Those had around $5,500 out of pocket before insurance kicked in, along with very high premiums. And they were mandatory.

Boris The Animal
05-06-2017, 09:06 PM
Scrap it and go to single-payer.Why? When it's been PROVEN the Federal Government has zero business in other social welfare issues. And you can say buh bye to any new innovations and R&D under Government run healthcare.

Green Arrow
05-06-2017, 11:27 PM
Why? When it's been PROVEN the Federal Government has zero business in other social welfare issues. And you can say buh bye to any new innovations and R&D under Government run healthcare.

That's an entirely subjective issue, so no, it hasn't been "proven." Why is the health of the general population of other nations with single-payer systems better than the health of the general American if it's such a terrible system?

Dr. Who
05-06-2017, 11:53 PM
That's an entirely subjective issue, so no, it hasn't been "proven." Why is the health of the general population of other nations with single-payer systems better than the health of the general American if it's such a terrible system?
I think it's the disinformation circulated that if America goes single-payer, that all research and medical progress will halt in its tracks and that medicine in America will decline. However, with very little research it is apparent that medical research goes on in the single-payer world unabated. Moreover, the cost of health care is less than it is in America. Most hospitals are public and not profit centers for shareholders and big pharma does not gouge their citizens. There is no other country in the world that prostrates itself to globalist and private agendas like America and there is no other country in the world that suggests that public health care is apostasy and that it's better that people become impecunious and end up on welfare because of catastrophic illness or die than embrace a logical methodology of health care delivery that cuts out all of the profit takers. Profit taking in health care is really what makes it increasingly unaffordable. Those health care premiums paid to insurers are two to three times higher than the underlying cost of the services being delivered.

Green Arrow
05-07-2017, 12:02 AM
I think it's the disinformation circulated that if America goes single-payer, that all research and medical progress will halt in its tracks and that medicine in America will decline. However, with very little research it is apparent that medical research goes on in the single-payer world unabated. Moreover, the cost of health care is less than it is in America. Most hospitals are public and not profit centers for shareholders and big pharma does not gouge their citizens. There is no other country in the world that prostrates itself to globalist and private agendas like America and there is no other country in the world that suggests that public health care is apostasy and that it's better that people become impecunious and end up on welfare because of catastrophic illness or die than embrace a logical methodology of health care delivery that cuts out all of the profit takers. Profit taking in health care is really what makes it increasingly unaffordable. Those health care premiums paid to insurers are two to three times higher than the underlying cost of the services being delivered.

I really believe radical individualism and capitalism have become a religion for some in this country.

Newpublius
05-07-2017, 12:05 AM
Halt? An exageration of course. Public education, public health care. Both are services capable of hiding their Trabant warts.

The Trabant did move of course. Of course, its shortcomings are very visible.

Adelaide
05-07-2017, 07:47 AM
Why? When it's been PROVEN the Federal Government has zero business in other social welfare issues. And you can say buh bye to any new innovations and R&D under Government run healthcare.
Would you be opposed if states decided to implement a single-payer system at the state level?

Peter1469
05-07-2017, 07:55 AM
Would you be opposed if states decided to implement a single-payer system at the state level?


I wouldn't. Although I note that Vermont tried but gave up as it was deemed to be unaffordable.

The problem in America is the level of care. We can't have a universal system with the current level of care- it is simply too expensive.

That is why I support an idea like RAM for those who can't afford market based health insurance. It is a very cheap way to provide quality care. We could afford a universal model along those lines.

Bo-4
05-07-2017, 10:38 AM
Tweak it don't trash it. Eliminate the state line issue and allow health insurers to sell anywhere they please just as Geico and Allstate sell auto and homeowners insurance.

But as to charging more based on lifestyle choices - it becomes far too complicated. What makes insurance work is EVERYBODY young and old hops in a giant pool and fair or unfair - the risk is spread evenly.

Auto insurance isn't fair either. We all have to pay more for crappy, distracted and uninsured drivers.

Ultimately the best solution is Bernie's solution: Single payer Medicare for all.

Kalkin
05-07-2017, 10:39 AM
Would you be opposed if states decided to implement a single-payer system at the state level?
I wouldn't. Of course, I'd most likely move to a state that respects individual liberty.

Peter1469
05-07-2017, 12:48 PM
Obamacare is based of massive redistribution of wealth.

You can't tweet it without destroying it.
Tweak it don't trash it. Eliminate the state line issue and allow health insurers to sell anywhere they please just as Geico and Allstate sell auto and homeowners insurance.

But as to charging more based on lifestyle choices - it becomes far too complicated. What makes insurance work is EVERYBODY young and old hops in a giant pool and fair or unfair - the risk is spread evenly.

Auto insurance isn't fair either. We all have to pay more for crappy, distracted and uninsured drivers.

Ultimately the best solution is Bernie's solution: Single payer Medicare for all.

Robo
05-07-2017, 03:45 PM
I wouldn't. Of course, I'd most likely move to a state that respects individual liberty.

If the left is so sure that Single Payer is the best healthcare and the right is so sure a market system healthcare is the only viable healthcare system, why are both so dead set against submitting to the 10th amendment and leaving healthcare in the control of the States and the people as mandated by the 10th amendment? New York and California could have a single payer system and prove it's the best and Texas and Arizona could have market systems and prove they're the best or some other State/States could have some kind of hybrid systems and prove they're the best, or every State could learn something from the others and prove some other system is best.

All of the money the feds collect and waste on healthcare could be left in the States and pay for whatever system the States want.

I can guarantee you that the feds Democrats and Republicans will only make healthcare more and more expensive and less and less quality care.

Peter1469
05-07-2017, 04:03 PM
If the US adopts a universal health care system, where are talented Canadian doctors going to go to make lots of money?

Boris The Animal
05-08-2017, 05:32 AM
Would you be opposed if states decided to implement a single-payer system at the state level?
That or a Constitutional amendment. Besides the loss of R&D and innovation, the other problem with ramming government run healthcare is it would not pass the Constitutional smell test.

Adelaide
05-08-2017, 06:49 AM
That or a Constitutional amendment. Besides the loss of R&D and innovation, the other problem with ramming government run healthcare is it would not pass the Constitutional smell test.

Even at the state level? Do you mean that individual state constitutions would be against it?

I do not think innovation or research would struggle if there were a mixed public/private system in place. Additionally, so long as the federal government keeps putting money towards the NIH and other institutions, research should continue without any hiccups. Most academic institutions rely fairly heavily on government funding, as well as private funding. Private facilities like pharmaceutical companies will always be able to do research since their drug costs offset the cost of coming up with the drugs.

NapRover
05-08-2017, 07:25 AM
All on the right wanted competition across state lines. Yet they didn't include this, why the heck not?? We know competition drives costs down, it's the most obvious step to take.

Robo
05-08-2017, 09:08 AM
All on the right wanted competition across state lines. Yet they didn't include this, why the heck not?? We know competition drives costs down, it's the most obvious step to take.

Because only things that include spending are able to pass a Senate with a 50+1 vote, it's known as reconciliation, Other things that don't have the House spending authority included in it are subjected to a 60 vote or filibuster if short of 60.

Robo
05-08-2017, 09:14 AM
Here again this thread as usual only proves that both right and left are so opposed to a State's solution to the healthcare issue they won't even discuss it on a political forum. I have to wonder why especially since the 10th amendment to our Constitution actually mandates it as a State's or the people's power and forbidden as a federal government power.

OGIS
05-08-2017, 10:04 AM
Sure thing crepitus and put what a million people out of work instantly and of course and all the insurers and all their investors. That is not something you can do overnight

Most of those million insurance workers will shortly be put out of work by an algorithm, anyway. Five years, max.

They can all retrain as l33t programmers and brain surgeons, so what's the problem?

OGIS
05-08-2017, 10:08 AM
Get the government completely out of the health care business. Let the market dictate. Make people take responsibility for their own health care.

So you agree that I can go out and start a medical practice? I don't have a degree in medicine, but what the hell, free market, right? The government has no business in health care, right?

OGIS
05-08-2017, 10:11 AM
Do you think health care is an entitlement?

Do you believe you have a right to it at the expense of others?


What would you say if you were broke, could not get a loan, and needed a year of very expensive cancer treatments?

Do you have the loftiness to forfeit your life over your principles?

Or what if it were your wife? Or one of your children?

OGIS
05-08-2017, 10:15 AM
Not a valid comparison.

Do you really need me to explain why?

Police may not be a valid comparison, as one of the core functions of any government is to maintain domestic peace.

But firefighters? LOL, I'd really like to see your explanation as to why taxpayer-funded fire departments are NOT socialist institutions.

I'll wait.

OGIS
05-08-2017, 10:18 AM
But they not only don't contribute, they are a drag on the whole system. Retrain them to do something productive.
Sort of like welfare recipients? And the blahs?

OGIS
05-08-2017, 10:24 AM
Do you think health care is an entitlement?

Do you believe you have a right to it at the expense of others?

Yes.

And I believe that you, also, have that same entitlement.

Cletus
05-08-2017, 10:46 AM
So you agree that I can go out and start a medical practice? I don't have a degree in medicine, but what the hell, free market, right? The government has no business in health care, right?

If you didn't engage in hyperbole and histrionics all the time, you might actually be a decent poster.

As it is... you are more annoying than interesting.

Kalkin
05-08-2017, 12:32 PM
What would you say if you were broke, could not get a loan, and needed a year of very expensive cancer treatments?

Do you have the loftiness to forfeit your life over your principles?

Or what if it were your wife? Or one of your children?
That's life. Of course, I have no wives or kids. If you have those kinds of commitments, best to be prepared for expensive situations in life.

Kalkin
05-08-2017, 12:33 PM
Yes.

And I believe that you, also, have that same entitlement.
Upon what authority?

OGIS
05-08-2017, 01:42 PM
So you agree that I can go out and start a medical practice? I don't have a degree in medicine, but what the hell, free market, right? The government has no business in health care, right?



If you didn't engage in hyperbole and histrionics all the time, you might actually be a decent poster.
As it is... you are more annoying than interesting.

Speaking of debate fallacies, are you going to answer the question, or simply deflect and attack me personally?

Are you, or are you NOT in favor of absolute total free markets?

If so, that means that you must support no licensing and no exams of doctors, for both of these things (which are enforced by the State - ultimately at the end of a gun) are Socialistic: interference in the free market.

If you do NOT favor absolute free markets, then our differences regarding the efficacy of Socialism are merely matters of [I]degree, are they not? If not, why not?

Please answer the question.

Cletus
05-08-2017, 02:43 PM
Not interested.

When you start posting in good faith, let me know.

Captain Obvious
05-08-2017, 02:46 PM
Not interested.

When you start posting in good faith, let me know.

Good choice, ypu were being trolled.

OGIS
05-08-2017, 07:33 PM
Not interested.

When you start posting in good faith, let me know.


Are you formally accusing me of a bad faith post? have you notified the mods?

That's OK, I will.

decedent
05-08-2017, 08:22 PM
If you think the ACA is Marxist, you need to do some studying on what Marxism actually is.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." If Marx had his way, the rich would be paying for everyone's insurance. Instead, Obamacare has a market where people buy their own policies.

Peter1469
05-08-2017, 08:23 PM
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." If Marx had his way, the rich would be paying for everyone's insurance. Instead, Obamacare has a market where people buy their own policies.

Old people with full maternity coverage.

lol. Their own policies....

Kalkin
05-08-2017, 08:28 PM
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." If Marx had his way, the rich would be paying for everyone's insurance. Instead, Obamacare has a market where people buy their own policies.
So the healthy and wealthy aren't required to pay for coverage they don't necessarily want/need while the poor get subsidized to some degree? Just because it's not a direct transfer of wealth doesn't mean it's not a marxist plan in sheep's clothing.

OGIS
05-08-2017, 08:45 PM
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." If Marx had his way, the rich would be paying for everyone's insurance. Instead, Obamacare has a market where people buy their own policies.


You know, it's funny, but way back in college I knew someone who was one of those Conspiracy Theory guys. One of the things he liked to relate was how "The Eastern Establishment Bankers" sent hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and outright grants to prop up the early Soviet Union. And the reason for that? Well, it was not that they were secret communists. They were capitalist bankers... and wanted to create a sort of reverse Potemkin Village, a totalitarian socialist Horror Display, as propaganda against American-style democratic socialist ideals...

...and to scare the hell out of dumb/ignorant/fundamentalist Muricans to help deflect from and hide the fact that they themselves were creating their own little feudalistic horror show right here.

But we all thought that guy was a bit crazy....

decedent
05-08-2017, 10:01 PM
So the healthy and wealthy aren't required to pay for coverage they don't necessarily want/need while the poor get subsidized to some degree? Just because it's not a direct transfer of wealth doesn't mean it's not a marxist plan in sheep's clothing.

I think Obamacare is a fair compromise between a totally free market and a single payer system. Those who can afford a policy buy one. Those who can't get subsidies. If they still can't afford it, they get medicaid.

What's do be done with sick people who can't afford to get better? What's your solution?

OGIS
05-08-2017, 10:10 PM
Upon what authority?

Darwin.

OGIS
05-08-2017, 10:25 PM
I think Obamacare is a fair compromise between a totally free market and a single payer system. Those who can afford a policy buy one. Those who can't get subsidies. If they still can't afford it, they get medicaid.

What's do be done with sick people who can't afford to get better? What's your solution?



The free market will provide.

Just have faith.

That trickle-down will start any day now.

Kalkin
05-08-2017, 10:51 PM
I think Obamacare is a fair compromise between a totally free market and a single payer system.
I don't.

Those who can afford a policy buy one.
I dislike the notion that the government can tell me what I can afford and then mandate I purchase it. You think this is a good idea for a country that was founded upon freedom and liberty?

Those who can't get subsidies.
So those determined to be "wealthy" must pay in at high rates so those determined to be needy can be subsidized? From each with means, to each with needs?

If they still can't afford it, they get medicaid.
Why should anyone get medicaid at the expense of others? Is my poor health somehow your fiscal burden? Even if I'm the architect of my own health due to years of smoking and drinking? Will you seek to curtail my self-destructive habits because you're being forced to fund their consequences?


What's do be done with sick people who can't afford to get better? What's your solution?
Why do I have to have a solution for other people's problems? I certainly don't expect them to have a solution for mine.

Kalkin
05-08-2017, 11:00 PM
The free market will provide.

You seem to misunderstand the free market. It doesn't "provide" anything. It's a descriptor for free individuals making mutually beneficial agreements between each other, unencumbered by the machinations and bureaucracy of the State.

decedent
05-08-2017, 11:33 PM
The free market will provide.

Just have faith.

That trickle-down will start any day now.

It worked so well before 2008. It's almost as if Obama wasn't elected with healthcare being his biggest promise.

decedent
05-08-2017, 11:51 PM
I don't.

I dislike the notion that the government can tell me what I can afford and then mandate I purchase it. You think this is a good idea for a country that was founded upon freedom and liberty?


You have to apply for it, so you technically decide. You can get out of the mandate with a fee. The SCOTUS ruled that this was constitutional as a kind of tax.

I don't buy the liberty argument. Nobody has complete freedom. You can't run around naked in a park or grope random people. Every society has it's laws and mores, which are all restrictions of freedom. The healthcare mandate is just one of many restrictions of freedom.


So those determined to be "wealthy" must pay in at high rates so those determined to be needy can be subsidized? From each with means, to each with needs?

Wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated. It's trickling up into the hands of a few. This is resulting in more poor people who can't afford the kinds of things people used to be able to afford. Taxing the wealthy gets a healthy balance back. Economies with high income disparity, usually manifested as a smaller middle class and decreased stratification, tend to do worse. Just as government power naturally centralizes, so does economic power. Both are a problem.



Why should anyone get medicaid at the expense of others? Is my poor health somehow your fiscal burden? Even if I'm the architect of my own health due to years of smoking and drinking? Will you seek to curtail my self-destructive habits because you're being forced to fund their consequences?


What's the alternative?

Charities have been proposed, but selfish people won't contribute. Basically, only the good people will be pulling their weight in helping sick people.

The free market didn't work. Insurance was either too affordable, thus inaccessible, and people with policies were often denied claims for ridiculous reasons. Many insurance agents have a 3-call rule, where they won't even consider your claim until you call them at least 3 times.

Single payer has worked in the richest countries on earth. It's simple, cheap and effective. Although it can be mandated federally, each state can control their own healthcare. Massachusetts has been using a system similar to Obamacare for at least 15 years. As Trump told the Australian PM, their system works.


Why do I have to have a solution for other people's problems? I certainly don't expect them to have a solution for mine.


Their problems are your problems. If they can't work, the economy suffers. Why not help them get back on their feet so they can get back to work. That's the economic perspective. Then there's the moral perspective of being willing to see another person suffer and refusing to help them ("Not my responsibility").

OGIS
05-08-2017, 11:53 PM
You seem to misunderstand the free market. It doesn't "provide" anything. It's a descriptor for free individuals making mutually beneficial agreements between each other, unencumbered by the machinations and bureaucracy of the State.

So how far would you dismantle, for example, State control over health care? Would you get rid of licensing, so that anyone could practice medicine? If not, how do you justify not doing so?

Captain Obvious
05-08-2017, 11:54 PM
So how far would you dismantle, for example, State control over health care? Would you get rid of licensing, so that anyone could practice medicine? If not, how do you justify not doing so?

You're stuck on trolling that projection. It's irrelevant.

Kalkin
05-08-2017, 11:56 PM
You have to apply for it, so you technically decide. You can get out of the mandate with a fee. The SCOTUS ruled that this was constitutional as a kind of tax.

I don't buy the liberty argument. Nobody has complete freedom. You can't run around naked in a park or grope random people. Every society has it's laws and mores, which are all restrictions of freedom. The healthcare mandate is just one of many restrictions of freedom.



Wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated. It's trickling up into the hands of a few. This is resulting in more poor people who can't afford the kinds of things people used to be able to afford. Taxing the wealthy gets a healthy balance back. Economies with high income disparity, usually manifested as a smaller middle class and decreased stratification, tend to do worse. Just as government power naturally centralizes, so does economic power. Both are a problem.




What's the alternative?

Charities have been proposed, but selfish people won't contribute. Basically, only the good people will be pulling their weight in helping sick people.

The free market didn't work. Insurance was either too affordable, thus inaccessible, and people with policies were often denied claims for ridiculous reasons. Many insurance agents have a 3-call rule, where they won't even consider your claim until you call them at least 3 times.

Single payer has worked in the richest countries on earth. It's simple, cheap and effective. Although it can be mandated federally, each state can control their own healthcare. Massachusetts has been using a system similar to Obamacare for at least 15 years. As Trump told the Australian PM, their system works.



Their problems are your problems. If they can't work, the economy suffers. Why not help them get back on their feet so they can get back to work. That's the economic perspective. Then there's the moral perspective of being willing to see another person suffer and refusing to help them ("Not my responsibility").
I would respond to each point, effectively, but, in the end, I'll be brief and just say we disagree on the role and scope of government in our personal lives. See you at the ballot box.

Kalkin
05-09-2017, 12:00 AM
So how far would you dismantle, for example, State control over health care? Would you get rid of licensing, so that anyone could practice medicine? If not, how do you justify not doing so?
Anyone can practice medicine. I do it fairly often. The free market could quickly cull out the frauds. Sure, there would be some initial casualties of mortal beings, but the long term benefit of less government would outweigh those initial losses.

decedent
05-09-2017, 12:04 AM
I would respond to each point, effectively, but, in the end, I'll be brief and just say we disagree on the role and scope of government in our personal lives. See you at the ballot box.


Then lets keep it simple:

You have a friend who works full time and has a wife and kids. He works hard but has no savings. He gets a hernia while lifting something in the shed. He is in constant pain and is unable to work. A simple, non-emergency operation would get him back on his feet and able to work.

What should be done? He'd be able to work and contribute to the economy if he got the operation. Instead, he's on disability and his family is in worse shape.

From a moral and economic perspective, the answer seems obvious.

OGIS
05-09-2017, 12:24 AM
You're stuck on trolling that projection. It's irrelevant.

That is neither a troll nor a projection. It is a philosophical issue... and philosophy (whether you like it or not) is the basis of every political ideology and ethical framework in existence.

The pure free market anarchist, of which there is a long and illustrious company, would necessarily agree that no, there is no basis (indeed cannot be any basis at all, as there is no State) for licensing. Let the buyer beware. And in a largely ethical society with (1) decent communications between consumers, (2) a robust free market torts arbitration system, and (3) an active shaming/ostracizing system to enforce decisions, I would be first on board with it.
But that is a purist system and IMHO stands a snowflake's chance in hell of ever being done on a large scale. So, immediately, we are looking at some level of compromise between (a) what a real society with real good and bad behaviors requires to function, and (b) a hypothetical "total liberty" system of doctors who practice without licensing requirements.

What does that mean? If (a) socialism's defining characteristic is "government control over the means of production," and (b) doctors are the means of producing medical care, then (c) control and enforcement of those productive efforts is, in fact, a socialist scheme (to that specific and limited degree.

I utterly fail to see how you can, in intellectual honesty, deny that.

So the argument is actually not socialism -vs- free market.

The argument is how much of a mix between the two do you want?

OGIS
05-09-2017, 12:27 AM
Anyone can practice medicine. I do it fairly often. The free market could quickly cull out the frauds. Sure, there would be some initial casualties of mortal beings, but the long term benefit of less government would outweigh those initial losses.

Thank you! An honest answer (and one that I would seriously entertain were I King for a Day).

You, sir, have an intellectual honesty and courage lacking in some of your fellow conservatives (not naming names).

Kalkin
05-09-2017, 01:48 AM
Then lets keep it simple:

You have a friend who works full time and has a wife and kids. He works hard but has no savings. He gets a hernia while lifting something in the shed. He is in constant pain and is unable to work. A simple, non-emergency operation would get him back on his feet and able to work.

What should be done? He'd be able to work and contribute to the economy if he got the operation. Instead, he's on disability and his family is in worse shape.

From a moral and economic perspective, the answer seems obvious.
If he's a nice guy, I help him out. If he's a jerk, I leave him to his karma. The chick who had the bad sense to marry him might have to become the breadwinner.

decedent
05-09-2017, 10:09 PM
LIFE EXPECTANCY IS LOWER IN SOME PARTS OF U.S. THAN IRAQ, THE PHILIPPINES AND NORTH KOREA
(http://www.newsweek.com/life-expectancy-us-lower-iraq-north-korea-596257)

I don't see how anyone would be okay with this.

Cletus
05-09-2017, 10:28 PM
Why not?

Dr. Who
05-09-2017, 10:48 PM
Why not?

How about the moral authority to run around the planet telling other people how to live for one.

decedent
05-09-2017, 10:48 PM
Why not?

Because "We're #1"


People who scream that should open their eyes, take a look in their own back yards and ask themselves if things are as good as they seem. When people in Iraq are healthier than people in some American counties, there is no longer any support for the "exceptionalism" argument.

Cletus
05-09-2017, 10:53 PM
How about the moral authority to run around the planet telling other people how to live for one.

What does that have to do with health care in the U.S. unless you are agree that it is no business of the government?

Dr. Who
05-09-2017, 11:05 PM
What does that have to do with health care in the U.S. unless you are agree that it is no business of the government?
US moral authority knows no bounds.

Cletus
05-09-2017, 11:07 PM
US moral authority knows no bounds.

Okay, you obviously have nothing to add to the discussion.

Dr. Who
05-09-2017, 11:25 PM
Okay, you obviously have nothing to add to the discussion.
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but what I am saying is that America has held itself up as the model of democracy and values for all other nations. If America doesn't care that its own citizens are less well off in terms of health care than some second world nations, what exactly is it offering in terms of leadership or moral authority. A major part of being a first world nation is how that nation treats its own citizens.

Cletus
05-10-2017, 12:49 AM
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but what I am saying is that America has held itself up as the model of democracy and values for all other nations. If America doesn't care that its own citizens are less well off in terms of health care than some second world nations, what exactly is it offering in terms of leadership or moral authority. A major part of being a first world nation is how that nation treats its own citizens.

We have a rule book. We need to adhere to it. If you don't like the rules, change them.

Until then, the government has no business being involved in anyone's health care.

Peter1469
05-10-2017, 04:38 AM
Much of the lower life expectancy in the US is out of personal choice. The last several years, since perhaps the recession, white males were dying much earlier. In their 50s. Why? Because they were poor and suffered malnutrition and diseases that we see in the 3rd world?

No. Drugs, alcohol, and suicide. Problems associated with affluence. A wealthy society.

Boris The Animal
05-10-2017, 05:58 AM
And again, I have serious reservations about total governmental control over healthcare, which is ultimately, what the Left advocate for.

zelmo1234
05-10-2017, 08:01 AM
Because "We're #1"

Are those counties like Cook County IL where young inner city males are slaughtering each other? That would be part of the problem. Or the solution depending on you view of things Liberals don't seem to mind.


People who scream that should open their eyes, take a look in their own back yards and ask themselves if things are as good as they seem. When people in Iraq are healthier than people in some American counties, there is no longer any support for the "exceptionalism" argument.

OGIS
05-10-2017, 08:19 AM
We have a rule book. We need to adhere to it. If you don't like the rules, change them.

Until then, the government has no business being involved in anyone's health care.

Curious how you feel about government-funded - or even mandated (required) immunization programs.

Must children be immunized before attending school?

(Since I used the TV to sight in a rifle two decades ago, I've missed this glittering gem of TV drama, but I saw a really, really bad episode of Law & Order the other day while waiting for an exam at the VA. Overacting and drama-llama to the MAX! Plot: some snowflake antivaxer mom was on trial for murdering the child of another snowflake (sorry, that's how they acted) by not immunizing her own child against measles. She was, of course, found not guilty.)

donttread
05-10-2017, 10:29 AM
All americans and illegal immigrants and refugees had healthcare before the ACA. The ACA does the same thing and costs a fortune more.

No medical facility could turn anyone away whether or not they had insurance or were indigent. There was medicaid before the ACA

What the aca did was give many free healthcare and made everyone else pay more. Then theres those stuck in the middle that can only afford one level of health care and incur huge copays and premiums and cant afford to get sick anyway and dont qualify for subisidies.

Theres many drs wont accept most ACA plans

Actually before ACA we had around 46,000,000 unisured Americans.
Next?

donttread
05-10-2017, 10:30 AM
I would institute an OPTIONAL single-payer plan that anyone could buy into. No one would need to but it would cut out the private insurance industry. It would be like Medicare for the masses, should they choose to buy in. Not Medicaid. Medicare. I would allow anyone who so chooses to keep their private insurance policies -- their choice after all. I would also encourage doctors to accept half-price for their services for cash customers. I would not allow private insurers to handle any part of a national plan. Premiums for the national plan would be a fraction of private coverage premiums, which would eventually force the insurance companies to become competitive and reduce rates. Or, go out of business, but, hey, that's capitalism. Compete or go away.

The national plan would probably be relatively small to begin with, but citizens would soon realize that they were throwing money away with private insureres and they'd likely switch.

No mandates. Just a low-cost option. Nothing more is needed.

And, no, I wouldn't punish people who were fat, etc., but I'd let doctors decide who gets to be on the top of a transplant recipient list.


Interesting food for thought.

donttread
05-10-2017, 10:33 AM
Well, this isn't going to popular...

First, I support the notion that states should be able to make their own decisions and exercise their power appropriately. Ideally, referendums could be held, but I would support state-level universal health care but keep the private system. Having both is possible.

Quebec and Alberta in Canada both have a mixed system, and it seems like a reasonable compromise. At the federal level, I might support what Canada did which was to identify 5 goals of health care (including access to it) and then each province or territory meets those goals however they want by creating their own programs. If they fail to meet the goals, the federal government simply fines them by not giving x amount of federal dollars that would have normally gone to the province - Alberta gets dinged the most, if I remember right. But by personalizing, they determine what they can afford. In Ontario, dental and optometry are not covered (unless you have a special medical condition, like glaucoma) and prescriptions are not covered, although everyone under 25 will now be getting free prescriptions. To fill the gap, employers offer supplemental insurance that you can buy into which covers things the province won't cover, and often will also cover "elective" things like massages, chiropractors, eastern medicine, and so forth.

It's a fairly good system in terms of set-up. They need an overhaul to get rid of inefficiencies and save some money, but the general idea of a federal law with "goals" and provinces designing their own systems uniquely to suit those goals seems reasonable.


State level being the key. We may not be able to compete with the world if we don't establish vast saftey nets. But the feds do not have the Constitutional authority to do so and are horrible at it. Look at Medicare/ SS. One out every 7 dollars ever earned on the books for most people and yet the fund is struggling!

Kalkin
05-10-2017, 10:33 AM
Actually before ACA we had around 46,000,000 unisured Americans.
Next?
Do you prefer the stick to the carrot when it comes to government? That's exactly why the uninsured rate went down.

Kalkin
05-10-2017, 10:34 AM
State level being the key. We may not be able to compete with the world if we don't establish vast saftey nets. But the feds do not have the Constitutional authority to do so and are horrible at it. Look at Medicare/ SS. One out every 7 dollars ever earned on the books for most people and yet the fund is struggling!

Indeed.

donttread
05-10-2017, 10:34 AM
Am I the remaining sane person?

Remove the government's heavy hand from the healthcare insurance market completely. Or rewrite the Constitution to make some of us responsible for providing all of what some of you want.


There is no real free market in healthcare therefore at present the free market cannot fix the problem.

Captain Obvious
05-10-2017, 10:34 AM
Actually before ACA we had around 46,000,000 unisured Americans.
Next?

Great

Lets have the middle class pay for everyone's coverage, free healthcare coverage for all.

Throw life and auto insurance in there while you're at it.

donttread
05-10-2017, 10:35 AM
Lack of healthcare doesn't potentially threaten the health of the community?


Oh course it does.

OGIS
05-10-2017, 10:42 AM
We have a rule book. We need to adhere to it. If you don't like the rules, change them.

Until then, the government has no business being involved in anyone's health care.


So.... no prescription meds? Everything over the counter? No FDA approval process? Anyone can practice medicine without a license?

You keep wiggling, like a fish on a hook. Man up and tell us where you draw the line on government involvement in health care.

OGIS
05-10-2017, 10:53 AM
All americans and illegal immigrants and refugees had healthcare before the ACA. The ACA does the same thing and costs a fortune more.

Tell ya what, bucko. Why don't you get rid of your medical insurance and simply go the the ER every time you have a problem. Cancer? Let us know how that 6 months of ongoing cancer therapy works in the Emergency Room, 'kay?

Until you do that, stop the bullshit.

I'm lucky; I've got VA and my VA is one of the better ones. (Their UI department shares surgeons with UCI Medical Center.) So far, my bladder cancer has cost YOU, the taxpayer, about half a million dollars. The upcoming six weeks of BCG treatments, and the colonoscopy next week, and the surgery to proactively remove my appendix, AND all the costs associated with the various hospital stays, is gonna cost the taxpayer at least another million.

And I'm OK with that. Because I paid taxes for 50 years, (and am still paying taxes on my SS income).

OGIS
05-10-2017, 10:56 AM
State level being the key. We may not be able to compete with the world if we don't establish vast saftey nets. But the feds do not have the Constitutional authority to do so and are horrible at it. Look at Medicare/ SS. One out every 7 dollars ever earned on the books for most people and yet the fund is struggling!

One issue with state level is that the pools are smaller, and therefore limits the ability to negotiate pricing.

Captain Obvious
05-10-2017, 10:57 AM
Tell ya what, bucko. Why don't you get rid of your medical insurance and simply go the the ER every time you have a problem. Cancer? Let us know how that 6 months of ongoing cancer therapy works in the Emergency Room, 'kay?

Until you do that, stop the bullshit.

I'm lucky; I've got VA and my VA is one of the better ones. (Their UI department shares surgeons with UCI Medical Center.) So far, my bladder cancer has cost YOU, the taxpayer, about half a million dollars. The upcoming six weeks of BCG treatments, and the colonoscopy next week, and the surgery to proactively remove my appendix, AND all the costs associated with the various hospital stays, is gonna cost the taxpayer at least another million.

And I'm OK with that. Because I paid taxes for 50 years, (and am still paying taxes on my SS income).

The soup kitchen doesn't offer wellness checkups?

I wouldn't want my dog covered by the VA.

OGIS
05-10-2017, 11:03 AM
The soup kitchen doesn't offer wellness checkups?

I wouldn't want my dog covered by the VA.

I like your classy avatar. Can't get enough of it.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240

OGIS
05-10-2017, 11:05 AM
The soup kitchen doesn't offer wellness checkups?


Actually, several of them around here DO offer wellness checks.

Next!

OGIS
05-10-2017, 11:07 AM
Great

Lets have the middle class pay for everyone's coverage, free healthcare coverage for all.

Throw life and auto insurance in there while you're at it.

Better idea: let's get the Billionaires to pay for it.

That might actually rejuvinate the middle class.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240

Kalkin
05-10-2017, 11:09 AM
Here's the real question: Are you owed healthcare by someone else or are you responsible for your own health and healthcare?

Captain Obvious
05-10-2017, 11:14 AM
Better idea: let's get the Billionaires to pay for it.

That might actually rejuvinate the middle class.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240

Then why is the left forcing it down the middle class's throat?

Captain Obvious
05-10-2017, 11:16 AM
Here's the real question: Are you owed healthcare by someone else or are you responsible for your own health and healthcare?

That is true with any entitlement, but healthcare is a significant portion of our economy.

Big gubmint, that was the real plan all along. Bloat gubmint more, create dependence.

Kalkin
05-10-2017, 11:21 AM
That is true with any entitlement, but healthcare is a significant portion of our economy.

Big gubmint, that was the real plan all along. Bloat gubmint more, create dependence.
Healthcare is a unique federal power grab, though. Once you cede away your personal responsibility, you also cede away your natural ownership over your body, what you ingest, and how you maintain it. There's a reason that socialized medicine is a primary goal of communism.

OGIS
05-10-2017, 11:23 AM
Here's the real question: Are you owed healthcare by someone else or are you responsible for your own health and healthcare?

Assuming that a person has already gone into massive debt for a medical issue, would you deny them further medical procedures simply because they cannot afford it?

Because what goes around comes around. How old are you? Do you think it's possible that the random vicissitudes of life could screw you over in, say, 40 or 50 years?

What if you are diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, and your insurance company says "LOL, preexisting condition! You LOSE, Loser! Now pay your in arrears premiums or we send it to collections."

Always be careful what you wish for, and take the time to think about how your political stance now may affect you in years to come.

The face eating leopards are real.

OGIS
05-10-2017, 11:28 AM
Then why is the left forcing it down the middle class's throat?

Citations, PLEASE.

I like your avatar.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240

OGIS
05-10-2017, 11:30 AM
That is true with any entitlement, but healthcare is a significant portion of our economy.

Big gubmint, that was the real plan all along. Bloat gubmint more, create dependence.

Ah, yes, the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

Oh, l@@k, is that a communist under your bed?

I like your avatar.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240

OGIS
05-10-2017, 11:32 AM
Healthcare is a unique federal power grab, though. Once you cede away your personal responsibility, you also cede away your natural ownership over your body, what you ingest, and how you maintain it. There's a reason that socialized medicine is a primary goal of communism.

Can you show me these communists? Seriously, I don't see that many. And no one actually listens to them.

Communism is a dead and busted system, which never actually existed (per the 50th All-Soviets Party Congress) in practice.

Kalkin
05-10-2017, 11:36 AM
Assuming that a person has already gone into massive debt for a medical issue, would you deny them further medical procedures simply because they cannot afford it?
Actually, financial reality would deny them. I wouldn't have anything to do with it unless they were asking me for money.

Because what goes around comes around.
We don't base laws on karma.

How old are you?
I generally avoid answering personal questions, but you're okay in my book so far. 50.

Do you think it's possible that the random vicissitudes of life could screw you over in, say, 40 or 50 years?
I'll most likely be dead in 40-50 years, screwed over by mortality. Carpe diem.


What if you are diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, and your insurance company says "LOL, preexisting condition! You LOSE, Loser! Now pay your in arrears premiums or we send it to collections."
I have no insurance. By choice. I won't be diagnosed with cancer because I don't go to the doctor. If I do come down with some disease, I'll just have to deal with it via my own money or accept my mortality.

Always be careful what you wish for, and take the time to think about how your political stance now may affect you in years to come.
I'm quite aware of the fact that I'd be a net gainer in a government healthcare wealth redistribution scheme, I just prefer to sink or swim on my own. I am not owed healthcare by my neighbor, nor do I owe healthcare to my neighbor.


The face eating leopards are real.I have no fear of face eating leopards

OGIS
05-10-2017, 11:42 AM
Actually, financial reality would deny them. I wouldn't have anything to do with it unless they were asking me for money.

We don't base laws on karma.

I generally avoid answering personal questions, but you're okay in my book so far. 50.

I'll most likely be dead in 40-50 years, screwed over by mortality. Carpe diem.
I have no insurance. By choice. I won't be diagnosed with cancer because I don't go to the doctor. If I do come down with some disease, I'll just have to deal with it via my own money or accept my mortality.
I'm quite aware of the fact that I'd be a net gainer in a government healthcare wealth redistribution scheme, I just prefer to sink or swim on my own. I am not owed healthcare by my neighbor, nor do I owe healthcare to my neighbor.
I have no fear of face eating leopards

Once again, honest answers. I like that.

Based on honesty, you may be in the wrong camp.

As for living another 40 or 50 years - or even longer, it is quite possible. We are literally on the cusp of serious life extension technology. The Human Genome Project (https://www.google.com/search?q=Human+Genome+Project&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) has opened the door to some remarkable advances.

Kalkin
05-10-2017, 11:43 AM
Can you show me these communists? Seriously, I don't see that many. And no one actually listens to them.
Communism is a dead and busted system, which never actually existed (per the 50th All-Soviets Party Congress) in practice.
It's more the communist ideology of government control over the individual, and you see it manifested in nearly every law passed "for the public good" if you care to look deeply enough.
Vladimir Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State."

Kalkin
05-10-2017, 11:46 AM
As for living another 40 or 50 years - or even longer, it is quite possible. We are literally on the cusp of serious life extension technology. The Human Genome Project (https://www.google.com/search?q=Human+Genome+Project&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) has opened the door to some remarkable advances.
I would rather die young and independent than use the iron fist of government to force my fellow citizens to pay for things that I, as an adult, should be responsible for funding.

texan
05-10-2017, 11:48 AM
Scrap it and go to single-payer.

I kind agree. Shocked?


There are some catches to this thought I don't think people realize. I had a real informative discussion with a half a dozen Canadians. We need to think single payer thru and improve it.

Captain Obvious
05-10-2017, 11:52 AM
Citations, PLEASE.

I like your avatar.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240

Piss off, educate yourself for a change.

OGIS
05-10-2017, 11:53 AM
It's more the communist ideology of government control over the individual, and you see it manifested in nearly every law passed "for the public good" if you care to look deeply enough.
Vladimir Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State."




Pretty sure that Lenin never said that. Another fake historical quote (which the Right simply LOVES).


Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.

Fabricated quote from The Voluntary Way is the American Way (1949) by PR firm Whitaker and Baxter. According to The Heart of Power by David Blumenthal and James Morone (pp. 91-92): Whitaker and Baxter published a fifteen-page pamphlet of questions and answers entitled The Voluntary Way is the American Way, which, deep in the Q&A, concocted a quotation from Lenin: Q: Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of American life?A: Lenin thought so. He declared: socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.
Senator Murray asked the Library of Congress to track down the quote and, as expected, they found nothing like it—most scholars assume Whitaker and Baxter dreamed it up.

Alternate form: "Socialized medicine is a keystone to the establishment of a socialist state."


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin#Misattributed

I also note from Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=Human+Genome+Project&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=did+Lenin+say+%22Socialized+Medicine+is+the+Ke ystone+to+the+Arch+of+the+Socialist+State.%22)
that one of the secondary sources for this quote is Gateway Pundit. And that fact makes me doubt that Lenin and medicine even exist as real things.

I have my own quote that bears on this: "The Internet contains useful information but one must select it with care," - Abraham Lincoln in a letter to a Civil War Widow Aug 5, 1863..."

OGIS
05-10-2017, 11:55 AM
Piss off, educate yourself for a change.

I like your avatar.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240

Kalkin
05-10-2017, 11:56 AM
Pretty sure that Lenin never said that. Another fake historical quote (which the Right simply LOVES).


I also note from Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=Human+Genome+Project&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=did+Lenin+say+"Socialized+Medicine+is+the+Keystone+to+the+Arch+of +the+Socialist+State." (https://www.google.com/search?q=Human+Genome+Project&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=did+Lenin+say+))
that one of the secondary sources for this quote is Gateway Pundit. And that fact makes me doubt that Lenin and medicine even exist as real things.

I have my own quote that bears on this: "The Internet contains useful information but one must select it with care," - Abraham Lincoln in a letter to a Civil War Widow Aug 5, 1863..."
Who actually said it isn't important. What is important is the power over the individual that it cedes to the collective/state.

OGIS
05-10-2017, 12:05 PM
I kind agree. Shocked?
There are some catches to this thought I don't think people realize. I had a real informative discussion with a half a dozen Canadians. We need to think single payer thru and improve it.


Here's the thing. Technologies progress. This also happens in medicine.

100 years ago, physicists could spend $5 on some lumber and mirrors and expand the knowledge of physics. But that knowledge base expands and pretty soon you run in to the law of diminishing returns. That's why they had to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on CERN.

100 years ago, medicine was a lot less knowledgeable - and cheaper - than it is today, and patients are at the point where many simply cannot afford the costs.

I had three CT scans recently. That's a million dollar machine and each time they crank it up it costs thousands of dollars. There is no way in hell, even with most private insurance, that I could afford that.

What the debate seems to turn on is an unacknowledged acceptance by the elites of limiting such measures to the relatively small group that have the means to pay for it.

It will be... interesting... if someone comes up with a very expensive technique for extending life into the hundreds of years... and then deny it to the poors because the cannot afford it.

At that time, I will be buying stock in companies that manufacture guillotines.

Because that is where we are headed.

People need to check their privilege. Don't be clueless like Marie.

18096

Captain Obvious
05-10-2017, 12:09 PM
Here's the thing. Technologies progress. This also happens in medicine.

100 years ago, physicists could spend $5 on some lumber and mirrors and expand the knowledge of physics. But that knowledge base expands and pretty soon you run in to the law of diminishing returns. That's why they had to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on CERN.

100 years ago, medicine was a lot less knowledgeable - and cheaper - than it is today, and patients are at the point where many simply cannot afford the costs.

I had three CT scans recently. That's a million dollar machine and each time they crank it up it costs thousands of dollars. There is no way in hell, even with most private insurance, that I could afford that.

What the debate seems to turn on is an unacknowledged acceptance by the elites of limiting such measures to the relatively small group that have the means to pay for it.

It will be... interesting... if someone comes up with a very expensive technique for extending life into the hundreds of years... and then deny it to the poors because the cannot afford it.

At that time, I will be buying stock in companies that manufacture guillotines.

Because that is where we are headed.

People need to check their privilege. Don't be clueless like Marie.

18096

Investment advice from a guy who lived in an abandoned car.

teh awesomeness...

OGIS
05-10-2017, 12:15 PM
Who actually said it isn't important. What is important is the power over the individual that it cedes to the collective/state.

So... a scare quote that no one actually ever said is the basis for national policy?

Kalkin
05-10-2017, 12:20 PM
So... a scare quote that no one actually ever said is the basis for national policy?

Again, it's not about who said it, it's about what it's actually saying. Do you understand how I can be concerned about the government dictating my actions if I agree to let it be responsible for my healthcare costs? Is the sense of security worth the loss of liberty to you? It's not, to me.

OGIS
05-10-2017, 12:23 PM
Investment advice from a guy who lived in an abandoned car.

teh awesomeness...


I like your avatar. So classy.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=3&dateline=1493686240

Kalkin
05-10-2017, 12:24 PM
So... a scare quote that no one actually ever said is the basis for national policy?
And, actually, many people have said it. Perhaps not Lenin, but that doesn't dilute the truth of the statement. All it does is give you a diversion away from the issue.

More:

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963 - See more at: http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm#sthash.TR3ZNCSt.dpuf
#32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm

donttread
05-10-2017, 03:58 PM
Do you prefer the stick to the carrot when it comes to government? That's exactly why the uninsured rate went down.

Expanded Medicaid and reduced price insurance is why I believe the number of insured people went up. I never thought that fining you if you were too poor to affaord insurance was reasonable. I don't beleive the feds should be involved with healtcare , but they are and we can not regress. We need to find a a way and it should probably include charging me more for coverage because I'm over weight and smokers more extra than that.
Our terrible lifestyle is the main reason healthcare cost are out of control.

donttread
05-10-2017, 04:01 PM
I agree 100%.







And BTW I am just as surprised as you!


Certainly , there is a case to be made for self insurance and true price competition in healthcare, but I do not believe it would work right now.

donttread
05-10-2017, 04:07 PM
That's an entirely subjective issue, so no, it hasn't been "proven." Why is the health of the general population of other nations with single-payer systems better than the health of the general American if it's such a terrible system?

You have a point there. But gluttony is a piece of that. Food, booze, drugs, sort of like the Romans before the fall. I believe that success can reach such a level in a civilization that it leads to such over indulgence as to topple an empire. Because of what we choose to call success.

donttread
05-10-2017, 04:09 PM
Great

Lets have the middle class pay for everyone's coverage, free healthcare coverage for all.

Throw life and auto insurance in there while you're at it.

Over react much?

Captain Obvious
05-10-2017, 04:42 PM
Over react much?

Rarely