PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on March 09, 2017, 10:38:49 AM
-
So I looked at the Bill Paul Ryan is proposing on healthcare, and what a piece of crap.
The RINOS in the congress are thinly veiling their disgust with Trump and are looking for ways to make sure he won't get re elected. Doesn't anyone find it odd out of all the bills congress put forward to repeal Obamacare that now Trump is president, they can't seem to find those bills? And now Ryan puts forth "Obamacare Lite" and seems bewildered about the push back.
Then we have Mitch McConnell:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/323163-mcconnell-tax-reform-unlikely-by-august
The DC Establishment can't stand an outsider getting into their club, and they have their minions in congress making sure he will have a difficult time getting anything done.
In 2018 Wisc voters need to oust Ryan, and all of these RINO's in both the house and senate need to go.
-
So I looked at the Bill Paul Ryan is proposing on healthcare, and what a piece of crap.
The RINOS in the congress are thinly veiling their disgust with Trump and are looking for ways to make sure he won't get re elected. Doesn't anyone find it odd out of all the bills congress put forward to repeal Obamacare that now Trump is president, they can't seem to find those bills? And now Ryan puts forth "Obamacare Lite" and seems bewildered about the push back.
In 2018 Wisc voters need to oust Ryan, and all of these RINO's in both the house and senate need to go.
Like it is not enough to have the opposition party fighting you. We have our OWN party fighting us. The go along to get along Republicans who want to keep their place at the pig trough. I hope their own greed is seen by their constituents who vote them out of office. At least the Dems tell us they are anti American Communists. The establishment Republicans just lie about who they really are.
-
What they are putting forward right now is stuff that the Senate cannot filibuster. The tougher stuff will come later. So they say.
-
So they say.
-
So I looked at the Bill Paul Ryan is proposing on healthcare, and what a piece of crap.
How can that be? Can you clear up the confusion caused by your panning of TrumpCare©
The President was very clear in his message that TrumpCare© was wonderful!
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Our wonderful new Healthcare Bill is now out for review and negotiation. ObamaCare is a complete and total disaster - is imploding fast!
7:13 AM - 7 Mar 2017
“It’s an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.”
"There's many different ways, by the way. Everybody's got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, 'No, no, the lower 25 percent that can't afford private'… I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Mr. Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
Perhaps the President was ill-informed, unaware of the contents of the bill or mis-spoke? The President is the leader of the country and the Republican party. How can this be only the Ryan bill?
That being said, I do agree that the TrumpCare© bill is amazingly underwhelming.
Similarly to ObamaCare, it does very little to nothing concerning actual health care costs.
Shifts the burden of health care insurance to the poorer folks and the elderly folks.
Provides an impressive tax cut to the wealthy.
Will likely cause 10-15 million people to lose their health care insurance
Puts the states in a very uncomfortable position of figuring out how to pay for Medicaid.
-
Puts the states in a very uncomfortable position of figuring out how to pay for Medicaid.
Not that I agree with the rest of your post, I only want to address this last point.
It should be uncomfortable for politicians to figure out how to pay for any government spending. Part of the problem is that on the Federal level, it has never been uncomfortable; they just tax more to pay for everything. But if we shift the responsibility down to the states, then the politicians who are closer to the voters will have to make the tough decisions. And those decisions should reside with the individual States rather than the Federal government.
-
Not that I agree with the rest of your post, I only want to address this last point.
No worries! ;)
It should be uncomfortable for politicians to figure out how to pay for any government spending. Part of the problem is that on the Federal level, it has never been uncomfortable; they just tax more to pay for everything. But if we shift the responsibility down to the states, then the politicians who are closer to the voters will have to make the tough decisions. And those decisions should reside with the individual States rather than the Federal government.
A fair point. In this case however, the message is that the Republicans are going to (potentially) save some money on the Federal budget by dumping people off health care insurance but don't want the bad publicity. Therefore, their plan is to put that problem on the states.
-
I thought we were going to have to pass it to see what is in it.
-
A fair point. In this case however, the message is that the Republicans are going to (potentially) save some money on the Federal budget by dumping people off health care insurance but don't want the bad publicity. Therefore, their plan is to put that problem on the states.
Your premise suggests that healthcare is a right, and it is not. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to pay for healthcare. If a state chooses to provide it (Hawaii tried and failed) then they can, but not the federal government. This idea that somehow we are obligated to provide healthcare is ridiculous and is part of the problem. We need to get entitlement spending as a whole under control.
-
In this case however, the message is that the Republicans are going to (potentially) save some money on the Federal budget by dumping people off health care insurance but don't want the bad publicity. Therefore, their plan is to put that problem on the states.
The Republicans are looking to reduce expenditures? Those bastards! How horrible.
-
NoIn this case however, the message is that the Republicans are going to (potentially) save some money on the Federal budget by dumping people off health care insurance but don't want the bad publicity. Therefore, their plan is to put that problem on the states.
Should those people have health insurance provided by government in the first place? I don't see anywhere in the plan where the poor, and those unable to get healthcare will be refused now.
-
Should those people have health insurance provided by government in the first place? I don't see anywhere in the plan where the poor, and those unable to get healthcare will be refused now.
No. The government is not authorized to provide for the specific welfare of individuals. They have no authority to spend our money that way.
-
Anyone saying that obamacare 'gave' healthcare to everybody is just as shallow and dishonest as saying that the republican plan will 'dump' 10 - 15 million people off of 'free' healthcare. That is just soundbite stupidity, going full bore.
Obamacare insured that everybody got to feel the pain of un-affordable healthcare. Having premiums skyrocket to 'afford' a plan with a ten thousand dollar deductible, and then calling it an affordable plan is just plain stupid. The only way to get health costs under control is to take the federal government out of it, because our politicians will pander to the uninformed and spend our tax dollars pretending to give something to everybody, then turn around and sell out to the establishment and big business.
-
Your premise suggests that healthcare is a right, and it is not.
In order for health care to not be a right you have to turn sick people away from emergency rooms. If you can do that (good luck, most medical professionals of my acquaintance are decent people) then it is indeed a commodity. However, it will never be responsive to market forces, not ever. It has what Economists call inelastic demand, if you're in pain or sick you're going to pay whatever it takes to get better whether you have it or not. Add to the pile that most severe diseases can cost more to remedy than most people make in a lifetime. It simply isn't a commodity that will respond to market forces in the same way as radios and Wheaties.
So you're going to pay for it one way or the other. The one advantage to Obamacare is you at least have the chance to keep serious disease at bay with scheduled visits to medical professionals. Health maintenance is far more parsimonious than emergency intervention.
-
The one advantage to Obamacare is you at least have the chance to keep serious disease at bay with scheduled visits to medical professionals. Health maintenance is far more parsimonious than emergency intervention.
More warped lefty "thinking." I've not gone to see a doctor in the last couple of years because I have a $6500 deducible. On top of a premium that exceeds my housing costs, and I'm "healthy" and have no "pre-existing conditions." I just tough it out.
Funny, I'll bet one of the people on the "receiving end" of free medical insurance don't give it a second thought to go to the ER if they have a cold.
-
In order for health care to not be a right you have to turn sick people away from emergency rooms. If you can do that (good luck, most medical professionals of my acquaintance are decent people) then it is indeed a commodity. However, it will never be responsive to market forces, not ever. It has what Economists call inelastic demand, if you're in pain or sick you're going to pay whatever it takes to get better whether you have it or not. Add to the pile that most severe diseases can cost more to remedy than most people make in a lifetime. It simply isn't a commodity that will respond to market forces in the same way as radios and Wheaties.
So you're going to pay for it one way or the other. The one advantage to Obamacare is you at least have the chance to keep serious disease at bay with scheduled visits to medical professionals. Health maintenance is far more parsimonious than emergency intervention.
Being a commodity does not make something a right.
Showing compassion and serving someone who can't afford your services does not make something a right.
The government cannot grant a right.
Forcing someone to provide a service against their will and for no remuneration is called slavery.
-
More warped lefty "thinking." I've not gone to see a doctor in the last couple of years because I have a $6500 deducible. On top of a premium that exceeds my housing costs, and I'm "healthy" and have no "pre-existing conditions." I just tough it out.
Funny, I'll bet one of the people on the "receiving end" of free medical insurance don't give it a second thought to go to the ER if they have a cold.
You have 15 free preventive services and one annual Wellness visit that do not cost you out of pocket even if you have not yet met your deductible.
-
In order for health care to not be a right you have to turn sick people away from emergency rooms. If you can do that (good luck, most medical professionals of my acquaintance are decent people) then it is indeed a commodity. However, it will never be responsive to market forces, not ever. It has what Economists call inelastic demand, if you're in pain or sick you're going to pay whatever it takes to get better whether you have it or not. Add to the pile that most severe diseases can cost more to remedy than most people make in a lifetime. It simply isn't a commodity that will respond to market forces in the same way as radios and Wheaties.
Those claims aren't supported by the historical evidence. And the reality is that the suppliers aren't often even in a position to sell what the prospects demand (cure what ails the patient.) Besides, it isn't clear why your argument can't be applied to food and water, which are essential to life. I say there is no difference between, say, a market for water (or food) and a market for medical care. In the real world there are competitors willing to supply both - absent government intervention that constrains supplies or enforces monopolies.
This is not to say that the medical professionals wont accept vast quantities of money to "treat" people with incurable conditions. That is one of the problems that Obamacare actually made worse.
So you're going to pay for it one way or the other. The one advantage to Obamacare is you at least have the chance to keep serious disease at bay with scheduled visits to medical professionals. Health maintenance is far more parsimonious than emergency intervention.
When I substitute "health insurance" for "Obamacare," the above statement is still valid sounding, making unclear to me what special aspect you were trying to attribute to "Obamacare".
As to health maintenance vs emergency intervention: The Oregon Medicaid health insurance experiment found that, while it had positive fiscal aspects for recipients, Medicaid had no statistically significant impact on health. Those on Medicaid vs the controls actually visited emergency rooms more, confounding expectations.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321#t=abstract (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321#t=abstract)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experiment)
-
Do you think the poor really use preventative services? Obamacare isn't health care. It is health INSURANCE. It is very, very expensive health insurance for the vast majority of people, and the deductibles for most are so onerous that it does not function as insurance except for catastrophic events. It needs to be repealed, and replaced with a market driven, competitive plan that can compete between states. Health insurance DOES react to market forces.
-
Besides, it isn't clear why your argument can't be applied to food and water, which are essential to life. I say there is no difference between, say, a market for water (or food) and a market for medical care. In the real world there are competitors willing to supply both - absent government intervention that constrains supplies or enforces monopolies.
Actually, you are entirely correct. What distorts the markets for necessities like food and water are government policies. We are already more efficient at making food that any society in history. The price is further driven down by government fiddling in the markets and in water supplies.
This is not to say that the medical professionals wont accept vast quantities of money to "treat" people with incurable conditions. That is one of the problems that Obamacare actually made worse.
Can you give me a for instance? I suppose treating people with illnesses like Cystic Fibrosis or Parkinson's to try and prolong their life might count, but that seems more humane than just cutting them loose and letting them die.
As to health maintenance vs emergency intervention: The Oregon Medicaid health insurance experiment found that, while it had positive fiscal aspects for recipients, Medicaid had no statistically significant impact on health. Those on Medicaid vs the controls actually visited emergency rooms more, confounding expectations.
Turns out that poor folks were far more seriously ill than anyone imagined. Prior to the advent of Obamacare we spent more per capita on health care than any other Western nation. I suspect that's still the case. We do not have the best medical outcomes for that.
The problem is fairly academic, gentlemen. As much as you dislike Obamacare those covered under it like it quite well, well enough that the political who dismembers it will also be dismembering his or her political career. The current Republican plan has been criticized by everyone but its authors and the POTUS. The Djin is out of the bottle and will not be easily stuffed back in. Says me it would be far better to fix Obamacare and try and slow down the growth of medical expenses. Everything I've read has suggested that Obamacare did just that, though I admit those numbers can be spun.
-
Says me it would be far better to fix Obamacare and try and slow down the growth of medical expenses. Everything I've read has suggested that Obamacare did just that, though I admit those numbers can be spun.
exactly how did that POS obamacare slow down thr growth of medical expenses?
-
exactly how did that POS obamacare slow down thr growth of medical expenses?
My previous health insurer, United Healthcare was one of two insurers left in the state in which I live. They pulled out last year because of Obamacare. We are now down to ONE health insurer, so of course they raised rates, and raised deductibles. My costs have doubled since last year, and the deductibles are so high that G*d forbid I actually need to use it.
-
exactly how did that POS obamacare slow down thr growth of medical expenses?
I truly don't know, and I doubt anyone does. Like the POTUS said, it's complicated. I've just seen numbers from a variety of sources suggesting an effect. To one clear, all that's been seen is a reduction in the rate of medical expenditure increase. Medical expenses are still going up (they should be, lots of folks retiring) but at a slower rate than prior to Obamacare. I know, not much to crow about, but bette retain a hole punch the eyelid.
-
Liberals are not in the habit of applying facts to progressive propaganda.
obamcare was a scam from start to finish and progressives LOVE scams that hurt producers to benefit parasites.
There is nothing new in the progressive world and obamacare was just another in a long line of legislation designed to wrestle choices out of the hands of those who pay the bills and place that power and the money that comes with it, in the hands of parasitic progressives and other types of criminals.
-
Liberals are not in the habit of applying facts to progressive propaganda.
obamcare was a scam from start to finish and progressives LOVE scams that hurt producers to benefit parasites.
There is nothing new in the progressive world and obamacare was just another in a long line of legislation designed to wrestle choices out fo the hands of those who pay the bills and place that power and the money that comes with it, in the hands of parasitic progressives and other types of criminals.
The eventual goal of Obamacare was failure of private health insurance, and thus a migration to single payer, government run health insurance, and government run health care. We just need to look at the Veterans Administration to see how government run health insurance, and health care works. Health care is rationed, and many do not get the care they need, or deserve. Long waits, onerous rules, and plain corruption keep many from receiving care to the point of death.
When the government tells you that you will have to wait for that procedure you need, or don't qualify due to XYZ reason, what will people do?
-
I truly don't know, and I doubt anyone does.
and yet you make the claim. Are you in the habit of making claims without being able to back them up?
final comment for you: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
-
and yet you make the claim. Are you in the habit of making claims without being able to back them up?
final comment for you: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Ummm... He is a progressive professor....
What need of facts when you have George Soros to set your opinions for you?
-
and yet you make the claim. Are you in the habit of making claims without being able to back them up?
final comment for you: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
I only said that I had seen the claim made in a number of news outlets. I cannot independently assuage the veracity of such claims due to the complexity of the data involved. Moreover, I cannot say the exact factor or factors that caused said effect. For all I know declining oil prices and not Obamacare are at the root of the observed effect. A citation (http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/aca-impact-on-per-capita-cost-of-health-care/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/aca-impact-on-per-capita-cost-of-health-care/)) for those that like that sort of thing. The only thing of which I'm certain is that more people are covered by health insurance now than were before Obamacare.
-
http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/the-truth-behind-obamacare-numbers
This article is form 2014 and the numbers have changed but I bet the [percentages have not. Notice the high percentage that ended up on Medicaid and not on private insurance. Also the number of folks that had their employers drop insurance and thus enrolled in the ACA to have insurance.
I'm not sure I wouldn't just let the damn thing collapse and then get rid of it with something new.
-
I'm not sure I wouldn't just let the damn thing collapse and then get rid of it with something new.
The problem is what's the new thing going to look like? Insurers make their money by insuring healthy people, and they need healthy people to pay for the sick ones. They loose money by insuring sick people, since the sick people will never pay the insurance company more than they spend on their illness (if sick people paid the insurance company more than it cost to treat themselves what need would they have for an insurance company?).
So in order to get insurers to cover sick people, you need more healthy ones to sign up. Hence the mandate. And you need to insure poor people, or they wind up costing even more on the dole. Hence subsidies. In order to cover sick and poor people whatever gets put in place is going to wind up looking a whole lot like Obamacare, which itself was based on the plan Mitt Romney used in Massachusetts.
Now if you want scrap either insuring the poor or insuring sick people (or both) it gets a lot easier. Indeed, the current reverse Robin Hood plan of the GOPs is sufficient. But at that point I think you're going to have a lot of pissed off people, as the GOP is finding out much to their chagrin. Like I said, the Djin is out of the bottle.
-
You have 15 free preventive services and one annual Wellness visit that do not cost you out of pocket even if you have not yet met your deductible.
Really? Where do I find that? Interestingly that is not listed as a benefit on the plan summary. Maybe you have to have a "free" policy in order to get those wonderful benefits.
-
In order to cover sick and poor people whatever gets put in place is going to wind up looking a whole lot like Obamacare, which itself was based on the plan Mitt Romney used in Massachusetts.
You know not of what you speak. What Gov. Romney proposed and what the liberals inflicted on Massachusetts are two entirely different things.
Gov. Romney proposed basically catastrophic health insurance and the democrats bloated it with coverage for everything under the sun.
No surprise that it cost waaaaay more than the plan proposed by Gov Romeny. And no surprise that health insurance costs in massachusetts continue to be amoung the highest in the nation.
-
I have a couple of health issues and go to the doctor several times a year. I get lab tests and x-rays frequently and require a few long term prescriptions.
But between my premiums ($8,400/year for just me) and my deductible ($6.5k) and my co-pays, I don't receive nearly as much in benefits as I pay. And I seriously hope to keep it that way. Although I will go on Medicare later this year, which will shift much of my health care cost to younger working people, whether they sign up for it or not. :)
-
You know not of what you speak. What Gov. Romney proposed and what the liberals inflicted on Massachusetts are two entirely different things.
Gov. Romney proposed basically catastrophic health insurance and the democrats bloated it with coverage for everything under the sun.
No surprise that it cost waaaaay more than the plan proposed by Gov Romeny. And no surprise that health insurance costs in massachusetts continue to be amoung the highest in the nation.
Whether it was his plan or not he signed it into law. But like I said, to do the things Obamacare was set up to do (prevent discrimination against the sick and provide medical care to the poor) whatever gets put in place is going to look a whole lot like Obamacare. And if Govco doesn't do those things I predict a change in management. I am far from alone in this. That's why the GOP's efforts to repeal have amounted to naught, and will continue to do so. The Politicians like their jobs. Personally, I'd like to see them stick to their guns. Do what they said they'd do and weather the political fallout for good or ill. The American people had a very clear choice in the last election. They chose the guy who said he was going to get rid of Obamacare and burn down the house.
Fine, burn it down. Elections have consequences. About time the American electorate woke up to that fact.
-
Personally, I'd like to see them stick to their guns. Do what they said they'd do and weather the political fallout for good or ill. The American people had a very clear choice in the last election. They chose the guy who said he was going to get rid of Obamacare and burn down the house.
Fine, burn it down. Elections have consequences. About time the American electorate woke up to that fact.
I agree. However, Trump and the Republican majority was elected on Repeal, and Replace. The replace part is what they are struggling with as you don't want the replacement to be WORSE than what is already there.
-
Whether it was his plan or not he signed it into law.
weak backpeddling.
It wasn't Romney's plan. Let's be honest with each each other insteading of BS'ing.
-
weak backpeddling.
It wasn't Romney's plan. Let's be honest with each each other insteading of BS'ing.
You would know better than most... didn't the original plan by then Gov. Romney include a mandate to buy insurance and the creation of insurance exchanges as well??
-
Be honest with yourselves.
It makes no difference what the new health care plan looks like, or covers. Whining progressives are going to offer a never ending series of straw man arguments, out right fabrications and hysterical bullshit to attack it, because and only because, it was a republican plan.
There is no way the perfessor is going to offer anything but evasion, half truths, out right lies, and partisan attacks, because that's the only thing in the democrat playbook other than lying about racism.
-
Fine, burn it down. Elections have consequences. About time the American electorate woke up to that fact.
That may be the end result since the proposed plan is certainly no improvement. That being said, hopefully the Administration and the Republicans have a Plan B. Try as they might to deny it, the Republicans now own health care. From spending 7 years trying to repeal and having no replacement until recently, the public clearly understands that if it fails, they know who to blame. With the Republicans having the Presidency, the House and a slim lead in the Senate, it will be pretty hard to just sit back and say "ain't my fault". Of course the Republicans have done all they could to see that it fails, from limiting Medicaid expansion to changing the rules for risk corridors to eliminating the cost sharing provisions and the recent EO. So maybe that is the best way, start all over.
-
I agree. However, Trump and the Republican majority was elected on Repeal, and Replace. The replace part is what they are struggling with as you don't want the replacement to be WORSE than what is already there.
Eye of the beholder. Like I said, in order to achieve its goals, the Obamacare replacement is going to need some mechanism to get healthy people to sign up for health care insurance. And that mechanism is going to have to make it as or more expensive to not sign up for insurance as it is to sign up for it. In other words; mandate. No way around it.
Right now it is illegal for a hospital emergency room to turn away patients. Even were it legal, I can't see empathic human beings turning away the suffering. Sociopaths perhaps. And the emergency rooms is the most expensive way to treat illness. Regular doctor visits are orders of magnitude less expensive. Hence subsidies. There is no way to accomplish this without folks paying in. That can be in new taxes, or higher premiums, or any number of different ways. But it will happen.
Again, this is a fait accomplis. Once given it is VERY difficult to take away a benefit. Dilute it somewhat perhaps, but not delete it. The GOP cannot do this alone. Moderates want some form of Obamacare, Conservatives want straight repeal. They'll never get the majority they need within their own party. The only way to reform Obamacare is to involve the Democrats, but at that point you aren't repealing anymore.
The Ryan plan is already dead on arrival, and they won't just repeal. They know better than that. You can expect to see Obamacare in some form for the foreseeable future.
-
Of course the Republicans have done all they could to see that it fails, from limiting Medicaid expansion to changing the rules for risk corridors to eliminating the cost sharing provisions and the recent EO. So maybe that is the best way, start all over.
As I have said previously, the goal of Obamacare was to fail, and then be replaced by a single payer (government run) healthcare. None of the Republicans wanted it, nor voted for it. It was to shift 1/6 of the economy over to government control. The problem now is the Establishment Republicans who are really more like Democrats as they like the status quo, and the continual growth of government as it makes their slice of the pie bigger. Trump has bigger enemies in his own party, than he has with the Dems in many cases.
Getting Republicans to agree on a plan, or course of action will again be their downfall to all our detriment.
-
it will be pretty hard to just sit back and say "ain't my fault".
Obama said that for 8 years.
-
As I have said previously, the goal of Obamacare was to fail, and then be replaced by a single payer (government run) healthcare. None of the Republicans wanted it, nor voted for it.
The GOP decided that the better course was to become the party of NO. Worked for them too. Democrats are now the minority party just about everywhere in the United States. Large swaths of the nation are now effectively single party rule.
The thing about single payer systems is the ones extant are better than ours in just about every way. They're cheaper and deliver better results overall. I know if you're wealthy you can get better care here. But overall they do far better for less. But I doubt you'll ever see that in the United States. Americans are too individualistic, or something.
-
Americans are too individualistic, or something.
You say that like it's a bad thing!
-
The GOP decided that the better course was to become the party of NO. Worked for them too. Democrats are now the minority party just about everywhere in the United States. Large swaths of the nation are now effectively single party rule.
Our form of government is DESIGNED to create gridlock. Laws should be hard to pass, as we have a very good foundation (and way too many laws as it is). The Republicans were the party of NO, because the Democrats have moved so far left, and refuse to compromise. Obama, was not a compromiser, he just wanted to ram stuff through, and he succeeded with the terrible Obamacare bill, and issued a plethora of EO's as edicts.
The thing about single payer systems is the ones extant are better than ours in just about every way. They're cheaper and deliver better results overall. I know if you're wealthy you can get better care here. But overall they do far better for less. But I doubt you'll ever see that in the United States. Americans are too individualistic, or something.
So Canada, and the UK have good systems? Have you talked to any of those subjects about their healthcare in those countries, about the quality, availability, and the resulting tax burden?
-
Obama said that for 8 years.
Obama isn't President.... I'll make a big leap of faith and assume you expect more of the current President.
-
Obama isn't President.... I'll make a big leap of faith and assume you expect more of the current President.
Yes, I do. And that surely won't be hard to deliver.
But my comment was in response to the statement that it would be hard to say "it's not my fault". I simply showed an example that proves it isn't all that hard.
-
The GOP decided that the better course was to become the party of NO. Worked for them too. Democrats are now the minority party just about everywhere in the United States. Large swaths of the nation are now effectively single party rule.
The thing about single payer systems is the ones extant are better than ours in just about every way. They're cheaper and deliver better results overall. I know if you're wealthy you can get better care here. But overall they do far better for less. But I doubt you'll ever see that in the United States. Americans are too individualistic, or something.
See???
Nothing but evasion and bullshit.
-
The GOP decided that the better course was to become the party of NO. Worked for them too. Democrats are now the minority party just about everywhere in the United States. Large swaths of the nation are now effectively single party rule.
And the DNC had no hand in their own failures? I guess in your mind, being the "party of NO" was the overwhelming reason for the success of the GOP and the failure of the DNC.
The thing about single payer systems is the ones extant are better than ours in just about every way. They're cheaper and deliver better results overall.
You keep claiming that, but are unable or unwilling to explain how "single payer" results in better care.
bottomline: no one can "fix" high medical costs until the reasons are understood. Looking at insurance companies or method of payment is just chaff detracting from understanding root causes.
-
bottomline: no one can "fix" high medical costs until the reasons are understood. Looking at insurance companies or method of payment is just chaff detracting from understanding root causes.
Insurance IS the reason for high medical costs. When I was 13 (52 years ago) I went into the hospital for a tonsillectomy. I remember being outraged because they charged a dollar for an aspirin. My parents told me not to worry about it because the insurance company would pay for it. I never understood that.
-
So Canada, and the UK have good systems? Have you talked to any of those subjects about their healthcare in those countries, about the quality, availability, and the resulting tax burden?
Absolutely. Remember, our system includes millions upon millions of uninsured, who have no access to the system whatsoever. Compare someone who has to wait a week to someone who has no access, it isn't a comparison. Again, if you look at per capita spending the US places in dead last among Western nations.
I know these facts are inconvenient, but they are true. You can look them up. It is also true that if you look at the best health care of the richest here, it is far better than what you get with the nationalized system. If everyone had access to that it would be great. But everyone doesn't.
-
Absolutely. Remember, our system includes millions upon millions of uninsured, who have no access to the system whatsoever. Compare someone who has to wait a week to someone who has no access, it isn't a comparison. Again, if you look at per capita spending the US places in dead last among Western nations.
Weeks? I hear the wait times are months or more if you can get approved for the procedure. Everyone has "access" to health care in the U.S. if they need it. They can walk into an ER, and get treatment.
I know these facts are inconvenient, but they are true. You can look them up. It is also true that if you look at the best health care of the richest here, it is far better than what you get with the nationalized system. If everyone had access to that it would be great. But everyone doesn't.
The rich will always get good health care. The challenge is to make it affordable to the masses, and that is not what Obamacare does. You need to check your "facts" also.
-
Weeks? I hear the wait times are months or more if you can get approved for the procedure. Everyone has "access" to health care in the U.S. if they need it. They can walk into an ER, and get treatment.
The rich will always get good health care. The challenge is to make it affordable to the masses, and that is not what Obamacare does. You need to check your "facts" also.
I have seen some really bad emergency rooms, but I have never seen a waiting line over a week long.
Everyone in this country has access to health care. Many choose not to access it though. As has been said, if you don't force someone to buy something they don't want, they won't.
I read a news article today that extolled Obamacare with the headline that "12.5 million sign up through Obmacare". Had it been Trump's plan, the headline would have added the FACT that the CBO predicted 23 million would sign up. So under Obamacare, 10.5 million that were supposed to have health care; don't.
Kinda sheds some light on the CBO doesn't it? They may do well with arithmetic, but they suck at prediction human actions and reactions. Their kind of math says if you raise taxes 20%, revenue will increase 20%. Do any of you liberals see the fallacy in that?
edit: this was supposed to be a reply to Steingar.
-
Weeks? I hear the wait times are months or more if you can get approved for the procedure. Everyone has "access" to health care in the U.S. if they need it. They can walk into an ER, and get treatment.
The ER is THE most expensive way to deliver medical care. And they can turn away no one.
The rich will always get good health care. The challenge is to make it affordable to the masses, and that is not what Obamacare does. You need to check your "facts" also.
I cannot disagree, Obamacare is far from perfect. It is far closer to the current GOP plan, which is reverse Robin Hood if ever I saw it.
I have seen some really bad emergency rooms, but I have never seen a waiting line over a week long.
The night I drove my mother in law to the ER it was full of people, many if not most of whom were moaning in pain. My MIL was admitted immediately and was in a room a couple hours later. As I left I saw the people I had seen coming in still there. Talking to one of the nurses I discovered that they would be treated, but they could only be admitted slowly since there was no medical history, rendering diagnosis and treatment very difficult. Like I said, the ER is the most expensive. I suspect no one in nations with nationalized health care has to wait that long for emergency treatment.
Everyone in this country has access to health care. Many choose not to access it though. As has been said, if you don't force someone to buy something they don't want, they won't.
Everyone has some access to catastrophic intervention. What many don't have is access to the sort of regular health care than can prevent catastrophes.
-
Absolutely. Remember, our system includes millions upon millions of uninsured, who have no access to the system whatsoever. Compare someone who has to wait a week to someone who has no access, it isn't a comparison. Again, if you look at per capita spending the US places in dead last among Western nations.
I know these facts are inconvenient, but they are true. You can look them up. It is also true that if you look at the best health care of the richest here, it is far better than what you get with the nationalized system. If everyone had access to that it would be great. But everyone doesn't.
That is utter bullshit. You speak as if healthcare and health insurance were a free-for-all before 2010. It was not. There were no subsidies, no mandate, and a small minority of people weren't covered by insurance. Miraculous but true.
That group can be split between two basic groups. Those who could not afford insurance. For the needy, we had Medicaid. Still do. For those that could afford it but that CHOSE not to buy insurance, the ACA turned the entire process upside down, eliminating affordable a la carte and catastrophic health insurance, forcing hundreds of millions of people to buy unaffordable plans that cover everything including unnecessary coverage like pregnancy for seniors, just so 10 or 20 million can get free or reduced cost insurance.
News flash: Obama wasn't the first person to think about how insurance works. It has worked well for decades. Now insurance companies right and left are dropping out of the business. What changed?
-
That is utter bullshit. You speak as if healthcare and health insurance were a free-for-all before 2010. It was not. There were no subsidies, no mandate, and a small minority of people weren't covered by insurance. Miraculous but true.
If by small you mean 10-20% of the population, then I guess we agree sorta. That number just doesn't seem all that small to me.
That group can be split between two basic groups. Those who could not afford insurance. For the needy, we had Medicaid. Still do. For those that could afford it but that CHOSE not to buy insurance, the ACA turned the entire process upside down, eliminating affordable a la carte and catastrophic health insurance, forcing hundreds of millions of people to buy unaffordable plans that cover everything including unnecessary coverage like pregnancy for seniors, just so 10 or 20 million can get free or reduced cost insurance.
Because it simply doesn't work. In order for insurance to work, healthy people have to pay for the sick. Before Obamacare lots of people were kicked out of the system for being sick. I have relatives among them. If healthy people don't sign up and the insurance companies want to make any money, that's how it has to be. If everyone who's healthy says "I don't want to pay in unit I get sick", the damn thing doesn't work.
News flash: Obama wasn't the first person to think about how insurance works. It has worked well for decades. Now insurance companies right and left are dropping out of the business. What changed?
News flash, it wasn't working. We spent more for less, I think we still do. That isn't working, its failing. What changed is the ACA was underfunded for the folks needing coverage, they're far more sick than the legislations writers envisioned. It is in need of repair, there is no doubt. But I predict that if the GOP straight up repeals is they'll go form the party of NO to the party of no more. They own it now. If Ryan's Ryan's reverse Robin Hood plan gets passed expect the same results. Folks will get monumentally pissed off when the GOP takes away their health care.
Like I said, I think the GOP should. They should do what they've been saying they'll do. Americans should wake up and realize that elections have consequences, and that's what they voted for.
-
If everyone who's healthy says "I don't want to pay in unit I get sick", the damn thing doesn't work.
Which is exactly what is taking place right now. Young healthy people are not buying coverage, instead for them it's cheaper to pay the penalty than to buy the coverage. And if they do get sick, simply run out and buy a policy since they can't be turned down.
Only problem with that philosophy now is so many insurance companies are dropping out they won't have a policy to buy.
Liberal Talking Point:
But I predict that if the GOP straight up repeals is they'll go form the party of NO to the party of no more. They own it now. If Ryan's Ryan's reverse Robin Hood plan gets passed expect the same results. Folks will get monumentally pissed off when the GOP takes away their health care.
Like I said, I think the GOP should. They should do what they've been saying they'll do. Americans should wake up and realize that elections have consequences, and that's what they voted for.
Yep, just like 2009 and 2012, we were told "elections have consequences" by BHO himself as he gloated.
The election of 2016 is over, the liberals lost big time.