PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on March 29, 2017, 06:57:32 AM
-
I admit to having thoughts that everyone deserves some sort of health insurance. This is largely because I have two family members that desperately needed, but couldn't get it till Obamacare came along. My sister's husband cheated on her after she had twins, then he left her. One of the twins has cerebral palsy. The cheating, husband has occasionally paid a small amount of child support, but it was not near enough, and then when he was injured in a "hunting accident", he stopped paying at all. He is now on disability. My sister has a job, but doesn't make near enough to pay for child care and health insurance, so her kids are on medicaid and she is not on "Obamacare".
My brother had a good job managing 14 franchise auto repair shops and was earning >$100k/year. During the recession, the franchiser began closing store after store till there was only one left and that didn't need a full time manager. The owner took over. But his wife had become accustomed to a lifestyle they could no longer afford and the credit card debt began piling up. Then she was arrested for shop lifting. THEN she was arrested for spousal abuse. After a long, messy divorce, my brother got custody of their 4 boys. After a couple of years of no insurance for him (his kids were on Medicaid too), he FINALLY landed a part time job at Walmart for just above minimum wage. He was able to get insurance through Obamacare.
I was grateful they could both get insurance, but that doesn't mean I approve of Obamacare as a national program.
So I have been trying to figure out a better way. Here is what I am thinking.
I have been a proponent of the "Fair Tax" for a long time. One thing I like is that everyone gets a pre-bate check to enable them to live at the poverty level, but when they buy things, they pay tax on that. So everyone pays some tax, including hookers, drug dealers, welfare recipients, and all the lawn guys and house keepers that get paid in cash. I propose making the prebate big enough to pay "Most" of the health insurance premiums. They would buy from private companies that are by necessity, competitive with each other. They could buy high deductible policies with no pregnancy coverage if they wanted. Or they could NOT buy it, but then they get a smaller prebate.
I know this proposal will have many problems, but I think it also offers many advantages. Some may think that adding the insurance credit to the prebate is letting the camel in the tent for additional future allowances. I don't think so. I think the health care issue is important enough that it can have a unique position.
Ok, fire away. It won't be hard to make me change my mind and back off this idea, but I at least wanted to float the idea.
-
Little Joe, I feel for your relatives. That SUCKS big time! Regarding taxes. I would be OK with a flat income tax of say 10% - 15%. I fear consumption only taxes as a black market could crop up where things do not get reported, and thus people pay not tax on their purchases.
I am no health care expert, but as I have stated in other threads I am personally familiar with how government mismanages things. I would like to see a market driven, "fair" (whatever that means), system with a safety net for those that can not legitimately work, or find employment with health benefits to pay their premiums. What I think Trump is doing is creating an environment to grow the economy to create more jobs, and thus get more people employed, and able to pay health insurance premiums at a "reasonable" (whatever that means), level.
We have been in an economic malaise far too long. It is time to stop demonizing private enterprise, profit, and success, and get more people being successful without government subsidy. Profit does not equal GREED. However, there are some using crony (corrupt) means to get more than what they deserve by merit. That has to be stopped (yeah good luck).
-
I will now reveal my bleeding heart. I truly believe that no one should make a profit from the misery of others.
Everyone keeps screaming at the top of their metaphorical lungs that health care is not an inherently governmental function. I would ask the peanut gallery whether police or firemen are inherently governmental. I think most would answer yes, but must tremulously point out that both these were originally private. Our view of what is and isn't governmental changes as we change, and that's not a bad thing at all. Those who don' change are relegated to the dustbin of history.
-
And those who demand others pay for their wants and wishes are parasites.
Health insurance is a private issue, just like education is a local issue.
The federal government has NO PLACE in the relationship between a patient and their doctor, anymore than they do in the relationship between a lawyer and their client, or a priest and a congregant.
When the government forces health care providers to counsel patients on behalf of planned parenthood, the entire system has been hijacked by parasites and lying dogs.
When health care providers are forced to report on whether a patient owns firearms is a bastardization of the doctor patient relationship forced by liberal parasites and progressive marxists, who now lecture US about humanitarianism.
If it weren't for hypocrisy liberals would have no values what-so-ever.
-
I don't have time to address the prebate system, Joe, but what you describe shows the inherent stupidity of having health insurance being tied to employment with an employer willing to provide it.
Groups should be able to get together and form their own pools - AOPA, CAF, EAA, NRA, etc. to provide competition in the health care arena.
Before Obamacare, Wisconsin had a high risk pool called Badgercare. It was designed precisely for people like your family as you described. And the States is where this should reside, not FedGov.
-
I don't have time to address the prebate system, Joe, but what you describe shows the inherent stupidity of having health insurance being tied to employment with an employer willing to provide it.
Groups should be able to get together and form their own pools - AOPA, CAF, EAA, NRA, etc. to provide competition in the health care arena.
Before Obamacare, Wisconsin had a high risk pool called Badgercare. It was designed precisely for people like your family as you described. And the States is where this should reside, not FedGov.
I do agree with you that having health care tied to employment is counter productive, unfair and inefficient. it is a result of the government allowing businesses to deduct medical expenses, but not allowing individuals to do the same.
I also have some problems with the pre-bate system. but I think it is a workable compromise.
As for previous comments about the Fair Tax inducing a black market where taxes are not collected on some products, there is much evasion going on with the currents system. Who pay sales tax to their hookers or drug dealers? Under the Fair Tax, those hookers and drug dealers would pay tax when they make qualified purchases.
At least my way provides for the most people to have insurance without the government mandating it, and keeping the insurance industry private and competitive. And since everyone gets the same pre-bate, there is no incentive for people cheat to get their benefit, or to get more benefit than others.
-
I will now reveal my bleeding heart.
Compassion is an essential element to our humanity. So is our ability to reason objectively. Please try to keep in mind that you have no monopoly on compassion; there is nothing extraordinary you reveal. Unless your reasoning is guided only by a narrowly focused compassion - that is extraordinary and IMHO a mistake.
I truly believe that no one should make a profit from the misery of others.
Then either the misery goes unattended or anyone attempting to attend to the misery would have to do so reimbursed at a subsistence level. Where is the compassion for those who expend the effort to help? Where is the compassion in forcing others to pay for the help provided to the victim of misery?
Everyone keeps screaming at the top of their metaphorical lungs that health care is not an inherently governmental function.
If everyone was screaming that, how did the U.S. government get to where it is today? On the contrary, it was because a vocal subset were screaming at the top of their metaphorical lungs that healthcare is an inherently government responsibility. "Health care" is not on same list of basic survival requirements like water, food, clothing, and shelter. Last I checked, there is an alphabet soup of Federal agencies (and likely a lot of local government ones) that exist to help the homeless. Yes homeless people are still on the street. It turns out that privately run charities have a much higher success rate than government programs at attacking the underlying problems that make people homeless (alcohol, drug abuse, and mental illness.)
I would ask the peanut gallery whether police or firemen are inherently governmental. I think most would answer yes, but must tremulously point out that both these were originally private. Our view of what is and isn't governmental changes as we change, and that's not a bad thing at all. Those who don' change are relegated to the dustbin of history.
There still are private fire departments (https://www.ruralmetrofire.com/ (https://www.ruralmetrofire.com/)). State and local regulations have been enacted that make it difficult for such entities to exist.
As far as private police with similar powers to public police - the railroads have had them for decades.
I posted a link to a mises.org article on the "Your Thoughts on the AHCA" thread that provides a brief summary of all the government interventions in "health care" the last 100 years and concludes that the cost crisis is due to those interventions: government expanded the demand for health service while restricting the supply of servers (doctors and the like.)
-
And those who demand others pay for their wants and wishes are parasites.
Health insurance is a private issue, just like education is a local issue.
The federal government has NO PLACE in the relationship between a patient and their doctor, anymore than they do in the relationship between a lawyer and their client, or a priest and a congregant.
When the government forces health care providers to counsel patients on behalf of planned parenthood, the entire system has been hijacked by parasites and lying dogs.
When health care providers are forced to report on whether a patient owns firearms is a bastardization of the doctor patient relationship forced by liberal parasites and progressive marxists, who now lecture US about humanitarianism.
If it weren't for hypocrisy liberals would have no values what-so-ever.
Well put.
-
I will now reveal my bleeding heart. I truly believe that no one should make a profit from the misery of others.
Everyone keeps screaming at the top of their metaphorical lungs that health care is not an inherently governmental function. I would ask the peanut gallery whether police or firemen are inherently governmental. I think most would answer yes, but must tremulously point out that both these were originally private. Our view of what is and isn't governmental changes as we change, and that's not a bad thing at all. Those who don' change are relegated to the dustbin of history.
I would answer that health care and police/fire are completely different.
-
I don't have time to address the prebate system, Joe, but what you describe shows the inherent stupidity of having health insurance being tied to employment with an employer willing to provide it.
Groups should be able to get together and form their own pools - AOPA, CAF, EAA, NRA, etc. to provide competition in the health care arena.
Before Obamacare, Wisconsin had a high risk pool called Badgercare. It was designed precisely for people like your family as you described. And the States is where this should reside, not FedGov.
I would go one step more and say that nobody should have to form pools. It should be illegal for (all) insurance companies to differentiate based on individual risk. Everyone should be one pool. That is what makes it insurance and not a payment plan.
-
I would go one step more and say that nobody should have to form pools. It should be illegal for (all) insurance companies to differentiate based on individual risk. Everyone should be one pool. That is what makes it insurance and not a payment plan.
Neither Insurance pooling, nor evaluation and pricing based on individual risk, are contrary to the fundamental tenets of insurance.
-
I would go one step more and say that nobody should have to form pools. It should be illegal for (all) insurance companies to differentiate based on individual risk. Everyone should be one pool. That is what makes it insurance and not a payment plan.
So what your saying is that the cost should be based on the risk of the entire "POOL", not the individual, but then you also say that nobody should have to be in a "POOL". I am confused. Insurers base their cost on risk, as you know, therefore the either charge based on the aggregate risk, or individual risk.
-
So what your saying is that the cost should be based on the risk of the entire "POOL", not the individual, but then you also say that nobody should have to be in a "POOL". I am confused. Insurers base their cost on risk, as you know, therefore the either charge based on the aggregate risk, or individual risk.
IME underwriting is a bit of a scam: if you are a "greater" risk then you get penalized but if you have less than a "normal" risk you get no discount.
-
So what your saying is that the cost should be based on the risk of the entire "POOL", not the individual, but then you also say that nobody should have to be in a "POOL". I am confused. Insurers base their cost on risk, as you know, therefore the either charge based on the aggregate risk, or individual risk.
Nobody should form pools to buy insurance. Everyone should be in the pool of humanity. Otherwise, you get risk discrimination in joining pools. Well, we know you've been a great member of our "young and healthy" pool, but now you're 30 and so we're kicking your risky butt out. And again at 40, again at 50, again at 60 until suddenly you cannot afford insurance because you are forced into a pool with a bunch of sick people. It will happen to everyone, so shouldn't we design a system that you want to experience when you get older?
Insurers should based their cost on the risk of everyone they insure. Otherwise they are targeting individuals and saying "you are expected to cost us X, so we charge you X + Y". That turns it from insurance into a bet weighted in favor of the insurance company's profit. Whatever policy they offer, anyone can purchase for the same price. The only exception should be when someone refuses to buy insurance and then gets sick and suddenly wants insurance. A waiting period or buy-in/pay-back fee would be appropriate.
No government involvement.
But better than that would be not to have insurance at all. However, we know that will not happen.
-
IME underwriting is a bit of a scam: if you are a "greater" risk then you get penalized but if you have less than a "normal" risk you get no discount.
That does not compute. A base rate is calculated, and higher risks have a premium added to that base rate.
-
Nobody should form pools to buy insurance. Everyone should be in the pool of humanity.
Insurers should be allowed to form pools if they so choose.
.
.
.
Insurers should based their cost on the risk of everyone they insure.
Insurers should base their rates on whatever method they choose to remain profitable.
No government involvement.
Then why are you proposing rules, if the government isn't to get involved. Who will enforce those rules?
The government should only enforce the law. If a contract is illegal, or is illegally applied, the government can mediate justice. But they can't mediate the contract.
.
.
.
But better than that would be not to have insurance at all. However, we know that will not happen.
I almost agree with that. But "real" insurance that is optional rather than mandated, and without government subsidizing and regulating could be a good thing.
-
That does not compute. A base rate is calculated, and higher risks have a premium added to that base rate.
You just said the same thing, except you did not say anything about a lack of discount for the very healthy.
Insurance today is a bet weighted in favor of the insurance company. It is a bet that you will eventually lose.
-
Insurers should be allowed to form pools if they so choose.
Then they will form pools of 1, like they used to and the sick will not get insurance. Hope YOU do not get cancer, because if you do, insurance will suddenly become unaffordable for you. The rest of us lucky slugs will be OK, we're not sick. Yet.
When I say no government involvement, of course I mean that the government is not running insurance and not mandating it. Having a law regulating the insurance industry appears to be a necessary evil because the insurance industry would like to not have sick customers. Therefore they have to be forced into fairly dealing with the sick.
Everyone will go through this, unless you happen to be lucky enough to drop dead without any warning.
-
I will now reveal my bleeding heart. I truly believe that no one should make a profit from the misery of others.
Ok, Stalin. From whom will you be extracting professional medical services at the point of a gun?
The 13th Amendment generally precludes your line of thinking, but just for fun, when are you going to start giving away your services? Certainly it is unfair and a generator of great misery to saddle students with a lifetime of debt that they can never pay off just for the privilege of sitting in your class getting browbeaten with your liberal point of view. If anything is misery, I think that qualifies.
-
Ok, Stalin. From whom will you be extracting professional medical services at the point of a gun?
The 13th Amendment generally precludes your line of thinking, but just for fun, when are you going to start giving away your services? Certainly it is unfair and a generator of great misery to saddle students with a lifetime of debt that they can never pay off just for the privilege of sitting in your class getting browbeaten with your liberal point of view. If anything is misery, I think that qualifies.
So he (Michael) gets to define "MISERY". Listening to professors drone on for six years in college, and grad school was misery for me, plus the cost was misery. Professors should teach for free! Having to put gas in my car, pay my home expenses, food, clothing etc, is misery for me. It should be FREE!
:)
So what part of Russia did your family come from Michael? :)
-
I would go one step more and say that nobody should have to form pools. It should be illegal for (all) insurance companies to differentiate based on individual risk. Everyone should be one pool. That is what makes it insurance and not a payment plan.
Why? I think the insurance companies know how insurance works, and don't need to be instructed by Obamacare enthusiasts. Why shouldn't a pool of healthy, fit US Olympic Committee athletes be able to have lower premiums than an organization of fat old pilots (American Obese Pilots Association or AOPA)?
As someone in their 50s should I be able to pay the same life insurance premiums as a someone in their 20s? If not, why not, and why is that different from your health insurance belief of how insurance should be priced?
-
Nobody should form pools to buy insurance. Everyone should be in the pool of humanity. Otherwise, you get risk discrimination in joining pools. Well, we know you've been a great member of our "young and healthy" pool, but now you're 30 and so we're kicking your risky butt out. And again at 40, again at 50, again at 60 until suddenly you cannot afford insurance because you are forced into a pool with a bunch of sick people. It will happen to everyone, so shouldn't we design a system that you want to experience when you get older?
Insurers should based their cost on the risk of everyone they insure. Otherwise they are targeting individuals and saying "you are expected to cost us X, so we charge you X + Y". That turns it from insurance into a bet weighted in favor of the insurance company's profit. Whatever policy they offer, anyone can purchase for the same price. The only exception should be when someone refuses to buy insurance and then gets sick and suddenly wants insurance. A waiting period or buy-in/pay-back fee would be appropriate.
No government involvement.
But better than that would be not to have insurance at all. However, we know that will not happen.
Your formula is why young people, who used to be able to buy cheap catastrophic health insurance plans, are no longer buying health insurance at all because such plans are now illegal, thanks to people who think like you do. And replacement policies that cover everything from maternity to eldercare are impossibly affordable. Congratulations.
-
According to all conservacrats Health care has to be a business just like any other. According to them its sacrosanct in the Constitution, though it is no where to be found there. Conservacrats would rather people die in the streets for the crime of being poor. Conservacrats don't give a rats ass that folks can be sent to the poor house the crime of getting sick.
And Conservacrats don't care that systems are in place in other lands that truly serve everyone for less money than we spend. It doesn't match their all-important ideology, so it must not be true.
-
According to all conservacrats Health care has to be a business just like any other. According to them its sacrosanct in the Constitution, though it is no where to be found there. Conservacrats would rather people die in the streets for the crime of being poor. Conservacrats don't give a rats ass that folks can be sent to the poor house the crime of getting sick.
And Conservacrats don't care that systems are in place in other lands that truly serve everyone for less money than we spend. It doesn't match their all-important ideology, so it must not be true.
The level of stupid is very high in this post sir.
-
Your formula is why young people, who used to be able to buy cheap catastrophic health insurance plans, are no longer buying health insurance at all because such plans are now illegal, thanks to people who think like you do. And replacement policies that cover everything from maternity to eldercare are impossibly affordable. Congratulations.
You are setting up a straw man and you probably don't even know it. What you're stating here misrepresents my views so that you can run down false arguments.
I am not a fan of Obamacare. I do not agree with government interference in insurance, beyond the requirement to not segment the risk pool. Young people are absolutely free not to buy insurance. Mandated coverage levels are wrong. If you have not been spending money on insurance, it is not fair for you to just enter the risk pool, you have to pay to catch up.
On top of all that, reduce the cost of care. Then we won't need insurance at all beyond catastrophic policies.
-
According to all conservacrats Health care has to be a business just like any other. According to them its sacrosanct in the Constitution, though it is no where to be found there. Conservacrats would rather people die in the streets for the crime of being poor. Conservacrats don't give a rats ass that folks can be sent to the poor house the crime of getting sick.
And Conservacrats don't care that systems are in place in other lands that truly serve everyone for less money than we spend. It doesn't match their all-important ideology, so it must not be true.
Dropped by the drama department again for a little Shakespearean drama refresher course I see.
I'd keep your day job. You're not very good at the drama thing. But you're a hell of an arsonist with all the straw men that you set up.
-
If you pay $500 per month and have a $5,000 deductible that's $11,000 a year you could have for health services. I'd have to go back and research, but my wife had knee surgery for somewhere between $2-3K. It was arthroscopic surgery to clean up her knee. We negotiated everything since we were paying cash.
-
That does not compute. A base rate is calculated, and higher risks have a premium added to that base rate.
What are the figures that go into a "base" rate?
-
What are the figures that go into a "base" rate?
I have no idea. That is what underwriting is for. But if a "normal" person gets the best rate, who would get a discount from that? Superman?
-
According to all conservacrats Health care has to be a business just like any other. According to them its sacrosanct in the Constitution, though it is no where to be found there. Conservacrats would rather people die in the streets for the crime of being poor. Conservacrats don't give a rats ass that folks can be sent to the poor house the crime of getting sick.
And Conservacrats don't care that systems are in place in other lands that truly serve everyone for less money than we spend. It doesn't match their all-important ideology, so it must not be true.
You won't find any conservative that believes that health care is 1.) a right or 2.) in the Constitution. If you think that's the case, go ahead and prove it. I'll wait.
Conservatives don't want to see people die in the streets, but we also believe that an individual should be responsible for their own lives. Health care is a commodity just like many others and works on the principles of supply and demand. There will always be a demand for health care and thus, so long as it's free market based, there will always be a supply of doctors and others willing to provide it.
There are some private practices out there that are moving to a cash based system and that's allowing them to reduce their costs and negotiate directly with the payments. Your idea for a single-payer, government run solution cannot work. As it stands now, the government sets the reimbursement rates for Medicare which, to my knowledge, are never 100%. Why should the government decide what a doctor should be paid?
It's the same argument as in the other thread. If you believe that government should provide free health care, then shouldn't they provide free housing, clothing and food as well? All are necessary in life to survive so why shouldn't government provide that as well?
-
According to all conservacrats Health care has to be a business just like any other. According to them its sacrosanct in the Constitution, though it is no where to be found there. Conservacrats would rather people die in the streets for the crime of being poor. Conservacrats don't give a rats ass that folks can be sent to the poor house the crime of getting sick.
And Conservacrats don't care that systems are in place in other lands that truly serve everyone for less money than we spend. It doesn't match their all-important ideology, so it must not be true.
So why don't you Libadopes set up a fund using your own money to provide for these poor defenseless Oompa Loompas?
-
Conservacrats would rather people die in the streets for the crime of being poor. Conservacrats don't give a rats ass that folks can be sent to the poor house the crime of getting sick.
A conservative organization, the Catholic church, is the single largest non-government health care provider in the world. (Ever wondered why so many hospitals have religious-sounding names? More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_health_care (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_health_care))
Where the Catholic church taught and practiced health care based on charity for two millennia, the modern socialist teaches and practices health care delivered by way of political force.
(I'm an atheist, BTW. But the facts are the facts.)
-
A conservative organization, the Catholic church, is the single largest non-government health care provider in the world. (Ever wondered why so many hospitals have religious-sounding names? More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_health_care (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_health_care))
Where the Catholic church taught and practiced health care based on charity for two millennia, the modern socialist teaches and practices health care delivered by way of political force.
(I'm an atheist, BTW. But the facts are the facts.)
Darnnit Jim, there you go making a good point at the top of the page. Nobody can disagree with you so it will end the thread...
-
It's the same argument as in the other thread. If you believe that government should provide free health care, then shouldn't they provide free housing, clothing and food as well? All are necessary in life to survive so why shouldn't government provide that as well?
I wonder why liberals such as the perfesser don't believe a college education is a "right" and should be provided by the government? Shouldn't the government, in his world, run the university system, and decide what college perfessers should be paid? I mean, after all, the perfesser himself is profiting from these poor students who must pay high rates to attend his class, right? If the perfesser had any social conscience at all he would provide his services at a much lower cost to help out the poor, right?
-
Conservacrats would rather people die in the streets for the crime of being poor.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
You really believe that shit your liberal handlers feed you don't you? And I bet you regurgitate it to your students too.
That would be funny if it weren't so sad. :( :( :( :(
-
A conservative organization, the Catholic church, is the single largest non-government health care provider in the world.
I am not taking anything away from Catholic Charities, hospitals, nor the vast amount of charitable work they have done. However, I wouldn't currently call them a "Conservative organization". They are led, currently, by a Pope that is a devout Communist, with far left ideals. He is more in line with the ideas of the Globalists/Statists, and the government wealth transferors, than anything. It is very concerning that such a large, powerful organization is led by this type of individual.
BTW, I was raised Roman Catholic, and have nothing against the religion although I no longer practice it.
-
I am not taking anything away from Catholic Charities, hospitals, nor the vast amount of charitable work they have done. However, I wouldn't currently call them a "Conservative organization".
I was raised in a Catholic neighborhood, although I wasn't Catholic. It seemed all the Catholic families had a bunch of kids. Today, almost all the Catholic families I know, including my best friends, have fewer than 3 kids. Most have 2 and some only have one. These are older couples too, so if they were really conservative, anti-abortion, anti-birth control, how are they accomplishing this? (btw, I really don't think it is abstinence).
-
I am not taking anything away from Catholic Charities, hospitals, nor the vast amount of charitable work they have done. However, I wouldn't currently call them a "Conservative organization". They are led, currently, by a Pope that is a devout Communist, with far left ideals. He is more in line with the ideas of the Globalists/Statists, and the government wealth transferors, than anything. It is very concerning that such a large, powerful organization is led by this type of individual.
BTW, I was raised Roman Catholic, and have nothing against the religion although I no longer practice it.
I was raised in a Catholic neighborhood, although I wasn't Catholic. It seemed all the Catholic families had a bunch of kids. Today, almost all the Catholic families I know, including my best friends, have fewer than 3 kids. Most have 2 and some only have one. These are older couples too, so if they were really conservative, anti-abortion, anti-birth control, how are they accomplishing this? (btw, I really don't think it is abstinence).
As many of you know, I am Catholic, I grew up in two Catholic neighborhoods (other kids called our street "JP Lane" for Joe Parishioner Lane"),and my wife, daughter and I all spent 12 years in Catholic schools. My dad was involved as a layman with the Redemptorist Order, which was a missionary order of priests and brothers, who spread throughout the world doing missionary work. Every holiday, we invited any priests who were at a local retreat house over to our home. That's how I learned to bartend at age 7. Those guys could drink! They started calling our home a "Home for unwed fathers." ;)
I've got some bonafides here.
These days, I guess any organization that professes to be pro-life can be characterized as being conservative, though I would say that at least the Catholic Church in the US is not very conservative at all, pro-life stance not withstanding. They have been a consistent liberal voting block, which I can only attribute to the pro-poor propaganda of the Left. It's almost like the Jews who vote for anti-Semitic democrats. I don't get it.
As for the Pope, he's a disappointment to me. The whole infallibility thing only pertains to Church dogma and doctrine. His other statements are wrong IMO and I and many other Catholics are saying so.
As for birth control, most main stream Catholics have taken a pragmatic view of it, and disagree with it. We are all imperfect sinners, but many of us don't see that as a sin. We may be wrong, and some day we will know that. However, I get angry when non-Catholics claim I can't be Catholic because I don't follow every "rule." That's between me and my Priest, period.
Back to the conservative/liberal thing. There are some orders of priests that fall into both categories. I was taught by the Congregation of the Holy Cross fathers - think University of Notre Dame. They are quite conservative. My daughter was taught by the Jesuits - think Marquette University, college of the Holy Cross, etc. The Jesuits are quite liberal. All their college campuses are in urban areas, and back in the 1970s at least were known as the pony tail, sandal wearing hippie priests. Different stroke for different folks.
-
A conservative organization, the Catholic church, is the single largest non-government health care provider in the world. (Ever wondered why so many hospitals have religious-sounding names? More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_health_care (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_health_care))
Where the Catholic church taught and practiced health care based on charity for two millennia, the modern socialist teaches and practices health care delivered by way of political force.
(I'm an atheist, BTW. But the facts are the facts.)
It is true that for a millennium hospitals were exclusively run by religious organizations. It is also true that at that time said religious organizations were more or less offshoots if not entirely in charge f said governments.
The problem is at the time hospitals did little more than provide a bed and meals. There was little doctors could do, folks either got better or they didn't. Now medical care is far more complex and costly. It is unlikely that any purely religious organization could supply medical care for an entire population the size of the US, with the medical complexities contained within.
The point that such religious organizations have and still do provide such altruistic social services to anyone in need is certainly worth pointing out. Organized religions can often take it on the chin for their misdeeds, but there has been and is plenty of good that they do.
Said by a fellow Atheist, Odin withstanding.
-
It is true that for a millennium hospitals were exclusively run by religious organizations. It is also true that at that time said religious organizations were more or less offshoots if not entirely in charge f said governments.
The problem is at the time hospitals did little more than provide a bed and meals. There was little doctors could do, folks either got better or they didn't. Now medical care is far more complex and costly. It is unlikely that any purely religious organization could supply medical care for an entire population the size of the US, with the medical complexities contained within.
The point that such religious organizations have and still do provide such altruistic social services to anyone in need is certainly worth pointing out. Organized religions can often take it on the chin for their misdeeds, but there has been and is plenty of good that they do.
Said by a fellow Atheist, Odin withstanding.
Sorry, that entire diatribe is laughable. Even post WWII religious based hospitals were state of the art in medical care. The Catholic Church is also one of the wealthiest entities in the world. However, even they would like to be able to operate a hospital "in the black" occasionally.
-
Sorry, that entire diatribe is laughable. Even post WWII religious based hospitals were state of the art in medical care. The Catholic Church is also one of the wealthiest entities in the world. However, even they would like to be able to operate a hospital "in the black" occasionally.
The "State of the Art" just a after WWII was simply laughable compared to today.
-
The "State of the Art" just a after WWII was simply laughable compared to today.
I said "Post WWII", not "just after WWII". My Dad was in the medical profession from 1945 - 1996. Yes, over fifty years, so I am aware of the technological change, but medicine became pretty advanced in that ere, and Catholic run hospitals were fine. It has nothing to do with the advancement in medical technology.
-
I said "Post WWII", not "just after WWII". My Dad was in the medical profession from 1945 - 1996. Yes, over fifty years, so I am aware of the technological change, but medicine became pretty advanced in that ere, and Catholic run hospitals were fine. It has nothing to do with the advancement in medical technology.
Perfesser seems to have a bit of a problem with reading comprehension.
-
Perfesser seems to have a bit of a problem with reading comprehension.
Beats a single digit IQ all to hell.
You won't find any conservative that believes that health care is 1.) a right or 2.) in the Constitution. If you think that's the case, go ahead and prove it. I'll wait.
Conservatives don't want to see people die in the streets, but we also believe that an individual should be responsible for their own lives. Health care is a commodity just like many others and works on the principles of supply and demand. There will always be a demand for health care and thus, so long as it's free market based, there will always be a supply of doctors and others willing to provide it.
You think health care is a commodity like motorcycles or nerf balls. The thing is, if you're broke you don't buy a motorcycle or a nerf ball. And yes, if you have the money the cost of these things is tied to the demand for them. All well and good.
Medical care is a profoundly different beast. You don't shopping for a hospital while you're being driven in an ambulance after being hurt or falling ill. You mostly don't shop for the most parsimonious treatment, if you have the sense Odin game even one Lucifer's cognitive shortcomings you do what the medical professionals tell you, unless you are trained as a medical professional yourself and have an informed opinion. Moreover, when your life or well-being lies in the balance you'll pay anything. Medical care is utterly inelastic. I experienced this just the other day. After Mrs. Steingar endured a somewhat lengthy hospital stay I was informed that I am liable for 20% of the cost due to a recent change in our insurance. It really doesn't bother me at all, or as I put it to Mrs. Steingar, "a funeral would have been more expensive". So long as medical care is indeed inelastic and one can spend far more on medical care than one's estate, it will not act like a simple commodity. Wishing so simply won't make it so.
Because of all the facts most governments with societies similar to ours have nationalized their health care system. They spend less and do more, there is simply no doubt about it. Get your panties into as big a wad as you like about ideologies, I don't give a shit. I don't care if its Conservative or Liberal, I only care what works. It is very, very clear that the Nationalized systems work better than ours.
-
Beats a single digit IQ all to hell.
Beats your triple digit (000) to hell and back.
"People who boast about their I.Q. are losers." -- Stephen Hawkings
-
Many people claim that healthcare isn't a basic need such as food or water. In today's world it really is a basic need. Few of us over 40 years of age will go more than a year without seeing a health care professional and it shouldn't bankrupt a person to do so. And as we get older the number of visits increase quickly.
But the problem with healthcare isn't just insurance. It's the cost. Everyone here has personal experience with outrageous prices for simple services. I was flamed awhile back when I said it should be illegal for HCPs to charge insurance companies less than they charge people paying cash. "Buying in discount", they proclaimed. Hogwash. If we solve the problem with the exhorbitant cost of HC, we will have solved the vast majority of the problem.
My health insurance is tied to my employment, as is the case for most people. That's a societal thing, but I think it makes the problem worse.
IMO, the biggest problem with health insurance is that it groups together people with no common characteristics. You can't ban health insurance from people who smoke, drink, do drugs, overeat, etc. but people like that are grouped in with me so I'm essentially subsidizing their behavior. I work with a couple of people who are constantly going to the doctor for one malady after another. One is worried sick (yeah, a bad pun) because she's almost maxed out her $2M lifetime benefit. Other than my 50-year-old-guy exam thing a few months ago I've seen a doctor maybe 3 times in the last ten years.
I don't know what the solution is. I do know that there is no perfect solution that everyone will like. Those who need it the most (usually older, sickly people) say it should be mandatory. It doesn't seem fair that younger, healthier people should be forced to subsidize them. Make it free and there will be 100-yard lines of people waiting to get in the doors just because they can.
I think it would lighten the load tremendously if we had more para-professionals. Ex. There are a lot of prescriptions that can't be renewed until you see a doctor AGAIN to renew it. If you've got the same symptoms, and you've been on the same prescription for years it's nothing but a rubber stamp anyway. A friend of mine has to see his doctor every 6 months to get his prescription renewed. It's never changed once in the 25 years he's been getting it renewed. That seems like a waste of a doctor's time. My wife has prescriptions she has to see a doctor to get renewed.
Bring the cost of healthcare down to within reason and this becomes less of a hot button issue.
-
Many people claim that healthcare isn't a basic need such as food or water. In today's world it really is a basic need. Few of us over 40 years of age will go more than a year without seeing a health care professional and it shouldn't bankrupt a person to do so. And as we get older the number of visits increase quickly.
But the problem with healthcare isn't just insurance. It's the cost. Everyone here has personal experience with outrageous prices for simple services. I was flamed awhile back when I said it should be illegal for HCPs to charge insurance companies less than they charge people paying cash. "Buying in discount", they proclaimed. Hogwash. If we solve the problem with the exhorbitant cost of HC, we will have solved the vast majority of the problem.
My health insurance is tied to my employment, as is the case for most people. That's a societal thing, but I think it makes the problem worse.
IMO, the biggest problem with health insurance is that it groups together people with no common characteristics. You can't ban health insurance from people who smoke, drink, do drugs, overeat, etc. but people like that are grouped in with me so I'm essentially subsidizing their behavior. I work with a couple of people who are constantly going to the doctor for one malady after another. One is worried sick (yeah, a bad pun) because she's almost maxed out her $2M lifetime benefit. Other than my 50-year-old-guy exam thing a few months ago I've seen a doctor maybe 3 times in the last ten years.
I don't know what the solution is. I do know that there is no perfect solution that everyone will like. Those who need it the most (usually older, sickly people) say it should be mandatory. It doesn't seem fair that younger, healthier people should be forced to subsidize them. Make it free and there will be 100-yard lines of people waiting to get in the doors just because they can.
I think it would lighten the load tremendously if we had more para-professionals. Ex. There are a lot of prescriptions that can't be renewed until you see a doctor AGAIN to renew it. If you've got the same symptoms, and you've been on the same prescription for years it's nothing but a rubber stamp anyway. A friend of mine has to see his doctor every 6 months to get his prescription renewed. It's never changed once in the 25 years he's been getting it renewed. That seems like a waste of a doctor's time. My wife has prescriptions she has to see a doctor to get renewed.
Bring the cost of healthcare down to within reason and this becomes less of a hot button issue.
Annual physicals find things like prostate cancer. Don't play with fire. Get an annual checkup.
Soapbox: Off.
-
My health insurance is tied to my employment, as is the case for most people. That's a societal thing, but I think it makes the problem worse.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a societal thing". It is a "government" thing. But I do agree that it is making the situation worse.
It's started being a government thing when the government began giving employers a tax break for providing insurance that the individual could not get alone.
And it got worse as the government stepped up regulations.
Insurance drives the cost up because it separates the consumer from the cost. And when you have the employer paying for the insurance, then the consumer is even further removed. They see it as basically "free", and makes it appear as if there is an unlimited supply. And I'm sure you at least understand the theory of supply and demand and what happens to cost when those factors get out of whack.
Bring the cost of healthcare down to within reason and this becomes less of a hot button issue.
And the best way to bring the cost down is to get government out of it and allow the market to find a balance between supply and demand.
-
Many people claim that healthcare isn't a basic need such as food or water. In today's world it really is a basic need. Few of us over 40 years of age will go more than a year without seeing a health care professional and it shouldn't bankrupt a person to do so. And as we get older the number of visits increase quickly.
Yep, that's a valid observation.
But the problem with healthcare isn't just insurance. It's the cost.
Bingo! The hows and whys of that is pretty complex, not a single issue. A major, major failing of Obamacare and TrumpCare (thankfully defeated) is neither did much about the actual cost of health care and dealt mostly with who pays.
IMO, the biggest problem with health insurance is that it groups together people with no common characteristics. You can't ban health insurance from people who smoke, drink, do drugs, overeat, etc. but people like that are grouped in with me so I'm essentially subsidizing their behavior.
Isn't it a basic rule of insurance to group as many people possible together to spread the risk over the widest population? Certainly can't argue that smokers, statistically, are more likely to develop cancer than non-smokers. But, not all smokers develop cancer. It is all about risk and probabilities. The greater the pool of insured the lower the premium and the more accurately risk can be apportioned. The more you slice and dice the available pool, the harder it is to define risk and the greater the premium.
I work with a couple of people who are constantly going to the doctor for one malady after another. One is worried sick (yeah, a bad pun) because she's almost maxed out her $2M lifetime benefit. Other than my 50-year-old-guy exam thing a few months ago I've seen a doctor maybe 3 times in the last ten years.
Excellent and more power to you, let's hope that continues!! ;D
I don't know what the solution is.
Neither do I, but do know health insurance and health care was becoming expensive well before Obamacare, which really was aimed solely at increasing coverage, not necessarily cost control.
Bring the cost of healthcare down to within reason and this becomes less of a hot button issue.
Agreed, if the actual cost of health care is going to be reduced, we really need to figure out a better way to deliver it. I do like your thought of "para-professionals" taking a greater role. Since the health insurance/health care industry is huge, with lots of parties who will get gored if things change, it will be very difficult.
-
Yes, healthcare costs, and healthcare insurance costs were rising prior to Obamacare. However, healthcare insurance costs have risen at a much higher rate with Obamcare, especially with out of pocket costs. Rising premiums (often doubling or tripling), higher co-pays, and much higher deductibles have created the perfect storm that Obamcare was designed to cause. Hillary was supposed to push a single payer (government run) system, but fortunately that isn't going to happen. Maybe we can avoid a "VA style" of healthcare in the future.
-
Yes, healthcare costs, and healthcare insurance costs were rising prior to Obamacare. However, healthcare insurance costs have risen at a much higher rate with Obamcare, especially with out of pocket costs. Rising premiums (often doubling or tripling), higher co-pays, and much higher deductibles have created the perfect storm that Obamcare was designed to cause. Hillary was supposed to push a single payer (government run) system, but fortunately that isn't going to happen. Maybe we can avoid a "VA style" of healthcare in the future.
And with Obamacare, the benefits were designed to come first and the cost increase later. The cost increases we have seen are just the beginning. Wait till the bills for all the "freebies" start to come due.
-
Many people claim that healthcare isn't a basic need such as food or water. In today's world it really is a basic need.
...
Bring the cost of healthcare down to within reason and this becomes less of a hot button issue.
In the first part, you made an assertion without proof. Professional healthcare is not a basic need. People will survive without seeing a doctor, my grand mother never saw a doctor in her life until she got Alzheimier's. They will not live without air, water and food. See definition of BASIC need.
The last part is absolutely true. So do you support repealing the ACA and implementing strong tort reform?
-
A basic need is food, water, oxygen and shelter/clothing.
A common need could be health care, or not, depending on the culture.
To a liberal, everything anyone want is often declared a necessity for life to draw attention and tax money.
To a liberal, any leftist talking point ultimately becomes a "Right" to change the conversation away from the truth and direct it toward money and power to the government.
Basic Health Care has a different meaning depending upon the circumstances. Liberals NEVER get the concept that there is a finite amount of money to spend, so they constantly redefine need to justify taking more and more from people to fund their voter capturing campaign.
Basic Health Care Need can be defined wildly from an annual checkup and access to basic Rx's, to the liberal concept which includes child care, free abortions, free refills of the pill, to sex change surgery and all the psychological treatment that goes with the new make believe gender confusion bullshit.
The health care versus health insurance debate has no basic grounds for the discussion because liberals aren't sure just how much they can scam the taxpayers for... this time. Defining "Basic HEALTH CARE" would/might limit their ability to pack on more free stuff to buy votes.
It's like the living wage debate and the fake MMGW-Q scam. I figured I should throw in the Q since that si the new PC letter to attach to the phony LGBT-Q whiners.
Liberals won't/can't define what constitutes a living wage any better than they can define what the "correct" temperature should be, so they constantly barrage every discussion with a never ending liturgy of dire warnings that the temperature is rising beyond sustainable levels. That is just like liberal policy of not saying what constitutes basic needs.
It limits how far they can scam the rest of us, which infuriates a liberal.
-
It is very, very clear that the Nationalized systems work better than ours.
That is not clear at all.
-
If nationalized systems work so well, why do so many of those people from those countries come here to the US for treatment and procedures?
-
That is not clear at all.
It's clear if you are easily fooled.
-
That is not clear at all.
That depends on a personal definition of "better".
If by better, you mean more people dependent on a broken government to help them deal with a broken health system, then Obamacare is better. If better means people don't need the government to help them get care, then Obamacare is a freakin' disaster.
-
So what your saying is that the cost should be based on the risk of the entire "POOL", not the individual, but then you also say that nobody should have to be in a "POOL". I am confused. Insurers base their cost on risk, as you know, therefore the either charge based on the aggregate risk, or individual risk.
I am very aware of how insurers do it. What I said is "everyone should be in one pool"...that is, all the risk should be pooled together. I said the same thing in two different ways.
As we get to the point of having better and better knowledge of our health conditions, the risk turn into a certainty and insurance becomes untenable and therefore unobtainable. Insurers themselves cannot write a policy for known risks because whatever they write must, by the nature of business, be more expensive. That IS contrary to the nature of insurance.
Insurers are in the business of charging higher prices for lower risk. They do not want high risk and they certainly do not want known certainties. Given their preferences, insurance companies would only write cheap policies to healthy people who never use it.
-
What I said is "everyone should be in one pool"...that is, all the risk should be pooled together.
How about everyone in one pool. Everyone's premiums are based on their age at enrollment. If you enroll young and maintain your policy uninterrupted, you keep low rates, except for annual COLA increases. If you decide to enroll later, you start out with higher premiums, which also increase annually. Also, if you have pre-existing conditions, your rates are adjusted up even more. This would kick in after a certain age so that young people don't get hit with penalties for developing diseases early. And since everyone's rates are adjusted upward annually (COLA), it provides a greater incentive to enroll young, and a greater penalty for waiting to enroll.
-
How about using and treating health insurance as just that. Insurance.
-
How about using and treating health insurance as just that. Insurance.
How is what I suggested, NOT insurance? Everyone pays in with the hope they never have to collect, but if they do need to a great deal, it is there for them.
I guess I didn't mention that routine preventative things shouldn't be covered because everyone needs the same things in that category.
-
If government was so good at doing things, why do we have an infrastructure problem? Isn't that one of the things we expect government to do with our tax money?
Why would we not expect government to screw up health care just as badly? Look at they've done to the VA.
-
How about everyone in one pool. Everyone's premiums are based on their age at enrollment. If you enroll young and maintain your policy uninterrupted, you keep low rates, except for annual COLA increases. If you decide to enroll later, you start out with higher premiums, which also increase annually. Also, if you have pre-existing conditions, your rates are adjusted up even more. This would kick in after a certain age so that young people don't get hit with penalties for developing diseases early. And since everyone's rates are adjusted upward annually (COLA), it provides a greater incentive to enroll young, and a greater penalty for waiting to enroll.
You left out retirees. Under your plan, they would not have insurance because they have little ability to afford it.
Personally, I like the plan whereby we fix the tort problem, get doctors from under the thumb of lawyers and malpractice insurance and let them practice medicine. I 100% guarantee you that if we do this, prices for care will crash.
-
How about all the pansies, leftists, illegals, lay-a-bouts, scammers, gamers and parasites move to Canada and enjoy single payer all they wish?
-
How about all the pansies, leftists, illegals, lay-a-bouts, scammers, gamers and parasites move to Canada and enjoy single payer all they wish?
Probably because Canada generally requires visitors and illegal immigrants to pay for any health care services they need - such people aren't covered by their single payer system:
http://immigration.findlaw.ca/article/can-non-citizens-get-free-health-care/ (http://immigration.findlaw.ca/article/can-non-citizens-get-free-health-care/)
-
Probably because Canada generally requires visitors and illegal immigrants to pay for any health care services they need - such people aren't covered by their single payer system:
http://immigration.findlaw.ca/article/can-non-citizens-get-free-health-care/ (http://immigration.findlaw.ca/article/can-non-citizens-get-free-health-care/)
What?? You mean we can't just cross the border and sign up for benefits? Those racist bigoted bastards!!! Don't they know we live in a border free world! ::)
-
Does anyone know any Canadians that use, and like their healthcare system? I hear reports that Canadians sometimes come to the U.S. to buy their healthcare, but I don't know if that is true or not.
-
Does anyone know any Canadians that use, and like their healthcare system? I hear reports that Canadians sometimes come to the U.S. to buy their healthcare, but I don't know if that is true or not.
I know one young Canadian woman that uses and likes their system.
She has chronic fibromyalgia and Rheumatoid arthritis and is in constant pain.
Because her problems are chronic, she is able to make her appointments months in advance, and she is able to get her drug prescriptions.
But I don't believe she has ever had any sort of immediate need where she wanted to get in to see a doctor asap. Young people that don't get injured are sort of lucky that way.
-
I know one young Canadian woman that uses and likes their system.
She has chronic fibromyalgia and Rheumatoid arthritis and is in constant pain.
Because her problems are chronic, she is able to make her appointments months in advance, and she is able to get her drug prescriptions.
But I don't believe she has ever had any sort of immediate need where she wanted to get in to see a doctor asap. Young people that don't get injured are sort of lucky that way.
That's too bad about her condition. Yes, I do wonder what waiting lists are like, and how they prioritize.
-
The problem with comparing systems is that it's not a pure and fair comparison. The UK for example has private hospitals and private doctors which actually help finance the socialized portion. And America is hardly a free market example, with how tax law, Medicare and Medicaid and the legal regulations mess it all up.
My sister in law is from the UK and she moved over here and criticizes our healthcare today. She talks about how much better a government run system is. Idiot. What she is seeing is Obamacare and the result of decades of meddling by the government in our system. If the UK is so great why did she move here?
-
My sister in law is from the UK and she moved over here and criticizes our healthcare today. She talks about how much better a government run system is. Idiot. What she is seeing is Obamacare and the result of decades of meddling by the government in our system. If the UK is so great why did she move here?
A good friend of mine was injured when he was in the Marine Corps, and on partial disability. He has to go to the VA every so often. If you want to see what government run healthcare is like, go to the VA. It sucks. The only people happy about that system are the administrators that work there, and have cushy jobs, with big salaries, benefits, and moving bonuses.
The Department of Veterans Affairs confirmed Wednesday that it paid a senior manager $288,000 in “relocation payments” when it reassigned her from Washington last year to become director of the agency’s problem-riddled Philadelphia office.
The chairman of the House Veterans Affairs committee called the payment to Philadelphia Director Diana Rubens “outrageous.”
“The government shouldn’t be in the business of doling out hundreds of thousands in cash to extremely well-compensated executives just to move less than three hours down the road,” said Rep. Jeff Miller, Florida Republican, in a statement. “For VA to pay such an outrageous amount in relocation expenses at a time when the department is continually telling Congress and taxpayers it needs more money raises questions about VA’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, transparency and true reform.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/25/philly-va-director-got-288k-relocation-bonus/
-
He has to go to the VA every so often. If you want to see what government run healthcare is like, go to the VA. It sucks.
I served, and therefore have access to VA medical, but it would truly be a last resort.
-
The media and most of the elites are pretending that the democrats didn't construct obamacare specifically to fail to they would have cover to usurp all the money being spent on medical procedures and keep as much of it for themselves as possible. It was scam from start to finish and now that it is failing, the country failed to follow the script and put the chief crook, Hilary in office to oversee the final destruction of our economy.
Why the republicans don't tell the truth about Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama's thievery loud and often is a mystery to me.
-
Why the republicans don't tell the truth about Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama's thievery loud and often is a mystery to me.
When one lives in the swamp, if they move outside of the pack then they become the prey.
-
I'm watching "House of Cards" right now and if it is anything like real life that is true. Neither the democrats nor republicans (in D.C.) care about ideals. It's all about their own careers.
-
I've spent a fair amount of time struggling with the social, and societal issues surrounding private health care, and public(economic) policy on health care. I'm mostly a radical anarchist when it comes to govt, and I bend some and call myself a Libertarian for the most part. There are a couple of things that govt does moderately well, and many, many, many things that govt does an average job, and still plenty of things that govt does poorly.
First I can say honestly I don't have an answer. We all know someone who has health challenges that cause misery and grief and hope that they can be taken care of. But - as with anything, it's a matter of priorities. Here's the clause from the constitution that covers these kinds of things: 'provide for the common defense and general welfare'. It is called the 'general welfare clause'. What did it mean when it was written and what does it mean now? Since this is an open ended question and there is no one answer, we have to look to politics to solve it. Politics - is like sausage. People like the finished product, but no one wants to know how it's made. The left wants everything, all the time, for all people with no limits, and no requirement to invest in the sausage making. The money should come from high taxes, and be distributed 'fairly' as needs arise. Well, guess what? Whenever there's a big fat pile of tax money sitting in the bank, everyone suddenly has this great NEED for it. This applies in spades to health care money. No matter how much is piled into medicare, it always runs short. Gee? What a surprise(not). You can never, ever give away enough money to people. No one, on any planet, in any system will stop taking money if offered, or available. This too - applies to health care in spades.
Want an abortion? Well, did the govt impregnate you? No. So, why do you think it's all right for the govt to pay for your abortion. Now, having said that, this is the ONE exception that I will gladly pay for with one caveat. If the govt is going to pay for your abortion then you MUST also get permanent conception prevention of some kind(tubal ligation, etc). How about the OPs situation with CP? Well, I have a relative with moderate CP. He's 71 years old. He has never been given a dime of assistance for his CP. CP has been around since the dawn of mankind, why should the collective now, in this century be responsible for their care? Have we solved world peace? Have we paid ALL the other bills of the govt that are overdue? Is the nation and world other pressing common problems all taken care of that we can now focus on individuals? These are not rhetorical questions. At what time do we set the individual or family problems ahead of issues and problems that affect ALL US citizens? This is what was meant by the 'common defense and general welfare'. Those issues that rise to the national level of interest that it will be beneficial for all citizens, not just a small minority. Roads = common welfare. Schools = common welfare. Fire equipment = common welfare. Air Traffic Control = common welfare. See a theme here? How does one or ten, or 50,000 with CP in a nation of 3.2 million rate or rank? Sorry, I think you see where this is headed.
The constitution rights question. The constitution lays out specific rights for protection. Does that mean that this is the limit of those rights, and that any other rights are excluded? Are there rights that are not written but should be considered automatic, and presumed applicable? Like - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note it says 'pursuit of' happiness. Not the 'guarantee of happiness'. If happiness is being treated for CP, and getting the most out of your life with the disability, then fine - go forth and pursue. If you need help from someone, ask family, ask neighbors, ask church, ask the public. But - this is a far, far cry from taking from those more fortunate and giving to those less fortunate by FORCE(don't pay taxes, and go to prison).
Wish I could offer you more money, but if I pay for you, then I pay for them, and then the other guys, and by the time we're all done - the few are paying all the health bills for the many. Won't work.
-
I've spent a fair amount of time struggling with the social, and societal issues surrounding private health care, and public(economic) policy on health care. I'm mostly a radical anarchist when it comes to govt, and I bend some and call myself a Libertarian for the most part. There are a couple of things that govt does moderately well, and many, many, many things that govt does an average job, and still plenty of things that govt does poorly.
A reasonable position to take.
First I can say honestly I don't have an answer. We all know someone who has health challenges that cause misery and grief and hope that they can be taken care of. But - as with anything, it's a matter of priorities. Here's the clause from the constitution that covers these kinds of things: 'provide for the common defense and general welfare'. It is called the 'general welfare clause'. What did it mean when it was written and what does it mean now? Since this is an open ended question and there is no one answer, we have to look to politics to solve it. Politics - is like sausage. People like the finished product, but no one wants to know how it's made. The left wants everything, all the time, for all people with no limits, and no requirement to invest in the sausage making. The money should come from high taxes, and be distributed 'fairly' as needs arise. Well, guess what? Whenever there's a big fat pile of tax money sitting in the bank, everyone suddenly has this great NEED for it. This applies in spades to health care money. No matter how much is piled into medicare, it always runs short. Gee? What a surprise(not). You can never, ever give away enough money to people. No one, on any planet, in any system will stop taking money if offered, or available. This too - applies to health care in spades.
Don't disagree with most of this. Will quibble with the position that the "left" wants everything, all the time. From my view the "left" and the "right" are more than willing to feed off the public teat, they just want to spend it on different things.
Want an abortion? Well, did the govt impregnate you? No. So, why do you think it's all right for the govt to pay for your abortion.
Can you provide a verifiable example of government funds going to abortion for convenience? Might want to start with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
Now, having said that, this is the ONE exception that I will gladly pay for with one caveat. If the govt is going to pay for your abortion then you MUST also get permanent conception prevention of some kind(tubal ligation, etc).
Are you also in favor of Federal funding of birth control to minimize the rate of abortions? Personally believe government should neither promote nor prohibit abortion. It is such an emotional and personal decision that government should play no role.
about the OPs situation with CP? Well, I have a relative with moderate CP. He's 71 years old. He has never been given a dime of assistance for his CP. CP has been around since the dawn of mankind, why should the collective now, in this century be responsible for their care? Have we solved world peace? Have we paid ALL the other bills of the govt that are overdue? Is the nation and world other pressing common problems all taken care of that we can now focus on individuals? These are not rhetorical questions. At what time do we set the individual or family problems ahead of issues and problems that affect ALL US citizens? This is what was meant by the 'common defense and general welfare'. Those issues that rise to the national level of interest that it will be beneficial for all citizens, not just a small minority. Roads = common welfare. Schools = common welfare. Fire equipment = common welfare. Air Traffic Control = common welfare. See a theme here? How does one or ten, or 50,000 with CP in a nation of 3.2 million rate or rank? Sorry, I think you see where this is headed.
I do agree with your premise of "common welfare" and the examples you show. Not so clear as why you believe that the health of our citizens isn't part of that.
The constitution rights question. The constitution lays out specific rights for protection. Does that mean that this is the limit of those rights, and that any other rights are excluded? Are there rights that are not written but should be considered automatic, and presumed applicable? Like - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note it says 'pursuit of' happiness. Not the 'guarantee of happiness'. If happiness is being treated for CP, and getting the most out of your life with the disability, then fine - go forth and pursue. If you need help from someone, ask family, ask neighbors, ask church, ask the public. But - this is a far, far cry from taking from those more fortunate and giving to those less fortunate by FORCE(don't pay taxes, and go to prison).
Wish I could offer you more money, but if I pay for you, then I pay for them, and then the other guys, and by the time we're all done - the few are paying all the health bills for the many. Won't work.
Taxes are a necessity of a civilized society, no way around it. You may believe it is being taken from you by force, but there isn't a way around it. Funny how the argument usually boils down to dollars - generally follows the line that someone is getting something for free and I'm paying for it, and I don't like it. Wish we could all pick and choose what our tax dollars go for, most likely the services provided by our government would be quite different.
-
The best federal intervention into health care would be to get the federal government out of health care.
-
Mike Lee's take on the Senate healthcare bill:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/mike-lee-thinks-the-healthcare-bill-is-a-joke/article/2008617
Strong words from one of the most conservative members of the Senate. Hopefully they change this bill to actually repeal Obamacare.
-
In the last year Obama was president the republicans introduced a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare (ACA), voted in favor, sent to the senate and it was voted for and approved, then it was sent to Obama where he vetoed it.
So the question is: where is that bill? If it was good enough to vote in favor of by both houses, then why couldn't the republicans have just reintroduced that exact same bill and sent to Trump?
Was it they only did it previously for symbolic reasons, and never had an intent on actually repeal and replace? And are they afraid Trump would actually sign it?
-
In the last year Obama was president the republicans introduced a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare (ACA), voted in favor, sent to the senate and it was voted for and approved, then it was sent to Obama where he vetoed it.
So the question is: where is that bill? If it was good enough to vote in favor of by both houses, then why couldn't the republicans have just reintroduced that exact same bill and sent to Trump?
Was it they only did it previously for symbolic reasons, and never had an intent on actually repeal and replace? And are they afraid Trump would actually sign it?
Yes.
It is much easier to propose something that you know won't pass than it is to pass something that might come back to haunt you.
When my wife asks me where to go to dinner, I rattle off a few all-you-can-eat buffets or maybe a fried chicken or pizza place. I know she will veto them.
But when I think she will actually abide by my wishes (like on my birthday), I will suggest something much more acceptable that I still like, but won't piss her off too much.
-
The Hill now has a report out saying that the Republicans are considering keeping the penalties from Obamacare in place:
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/339306-senate-republicans-weighing-penalties-for-the-uninsured-in-healthcare-bill
At this rate they might as well not pass anything and let Obamacare remain in place. Both of these (ACA and BCA) are headed down the same road, just at different speeds.
-
Healthcare bills will continue to be disasters as long republicans keep following the democrat definition of healthcare. We need a bill or bills that split "healthcare" back into categories. Start with catastrophic health insurance plans, then handle what I would call traditional health insurance, which would cover more routine things, then handle plans that where everything is covered. I would expect the costs to increase per category, most likely exponentially. But in the end, those of us who would prefer to pay for routine care ourselves and just be covered for things like hospital stays and catastrophic stuff would end up being able to pick what we like.
The problem is health insurance has morphed into all inclusive health care, on top of that it's become politicized to the point where things that should not be covered, are, to make political points and gain votes. We all lose when this happens.
-
The best federal intervention into health care would be to get the federal government out of health care.
I totally disagree. The best federal intervention into health care would be tort control...and then to get out of the way of the rest of it.
The other day someone asked me why a hospital charges you $50 for a Tylenol. After explaining all the various doctors, multiple nurses, pharmacists, procedures, checks and double checks that they used, the simplest explanation I could give is that it cost them 2 cents to give you the Tylenol and $49.98 to protect themselves against a lawsuit for giving it to you.
Tort is out of control. It causes unnecessary procedures, tests and treatments which are performed solely for the purpose of a legal defense. Doctors are prevented from performing certain treatments on their own, which creates stratification and a hierarchy structure, both of which create additional cost centers which need to provide for their own profit in addition to paying for the profit of their subcontractors, AND their subcontractors, AND their subcontractors, etc. That is in addition to the direct cost when doctors are sued for failing to provide a cure, sometimes for things that are incurable. All of this creates the $50 Tylenol and other elements.
-
And Congress is made up mostly of lawyers.
Don't expect tort reform in our lifetimes.
-
And Congress is made up mostly of lawyers.
Don't expect tort reform in our lifetimes.
Actually only 226 members of Congress has law degrees, only 42%. And even they will listen if people start screaming for rationality in the tort system.
The major cause of the high cost of health care is uncontrolled tort by a wide margin. If people begin to understand that then their anger will carry the rest. In that vein, I would have agreed with you more if you has said that most people aren't capable of comprehending the cause well enough to get angry about it.
-
Actually only 226 members of Congress has law degrees, only 42%. And even they will listen if people start screaming for rationality in the tort system.
The major cause of the high cost of health care is uncontrolled tort by a wide margin. If people begin to understand that then their anger will carry the rest. In that vein, I would have agreed with you more if you has said that most people aren't capable of comprehending the cause well enough to get angry about it.
Honestly many Americans don't want tort reform. Why? Right now it's like winning the lottery. Just look at the shear number of PI attorneys and their 24/7 advertising. Get hurt? Win millions! Doctor hurt you ? Cha Ching!
-
I totally disagree. The best federal intervention into health care would be tort control...and then to get out of the way of the rest of it.
The other day someone asked me why a hospital charges you $50 for a Tylenol. After explaining all the various doctors, multiple nurses, pharmacists, procedures, checks and double checks that they used, the simplest explanation I could give is that it cost them 2 cents to give you the Tylenol and $49.98 to protect themselves against a lawsuit for giving it to you.
Tort is out of control. It causes unnecessary procedures, tests and treatments which are performed solely for the purpose of a legal defense. Doctors are prevented from performing certain treatments on their own, which creates stratification and a hierarchy structure, both of which create additional cost centers which need to provide for their own profit in addition to paying for the profit of their subcontractors, AND their subcontractors, AND their subcontractors, etc. That is in addition to the direct cost when doctors are sued for failing to provide a cure, sometimes for things that are incurable. All of this creates the $50 Tylenol and other elements.
Morgan and Morgan for the people ;)
-
Don't disagree with most of this. Will quibble with the position that the "left" wants everything, all the time. From my view the "left" and the "right" are more than willing to feed off the public teat, they just want to spend it on different things.
Can you provide a verifiable example of government funds going to abortion for convenience? Might want to start with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
Are you also in favor of Federal funding of birth control to minimize the rate of abortions? Personally believe government should neither promote nor prohibit abortion. It is such an emotional and personal decision that government should play no role.
I do agree with your premise of "common welfare" and the examples you show. Not so clear as why you believe that the health of our citizens isn't part of that.
Taxes are a necessity of a civilized society, no way around it. You may believe it is being taken from you by force, but there isn't a way around it. Funny how the argument usually boils down to dollars - generally follows the line that someone is getting something for free and I'm paying for it, and I don't like it. Wish we could all pick and choose what our tax dollars go for, most likely the services provided by our government would be quite different.
I'm going to do my best to answer these issues you've brought up, but I'm not going to nest them. And remember, I'm a borderline anarchist, who masquerades as a conservative/libertarian.
Absolutely agree that both left and right are out of control on spending, and the only difference is what they spend it on. If it were me - I would have a balanced budget amendment except for for declared war. So we agree on that. The conservatives are just as bad on spending. In fact, the legislature should have used the power of the budget to defund(or not fund) Obamacare from 2016 when they took over the HR.
Well, I didn't say that there were fed funds being used for abortions of convenience, but since you asked, PPH is an abortion mill and they receive a lot of fed funds. It's simply a matter of follow the money if you want to connect the dots. Further and more to the point I made, if you take the stand that Elizabeth Warren wants(prominent Dem senator) she would have all abortions all the time, for all the people. This is a left platform that if Clinton were in office, and there were two more senators would become law in a matter of hours or days. Again - further on that, I would support ALL abortions if the woman only agrees to sterilization by the govt too. I am not against abortion per-se, but as a method of continuous birth control, then pay for it your damn self. One free abortion, one free sterilization and that is the end of that.
Not in favor of any birth control federally funded. See above, one abortion, one sterilization, job done. Now - funny side story here to lighten the mood. As a young man I was stationed at Futenma Marine corps air station in Okinawa Japan(I flew helicopters). Back in the 70s, most unit commanders would not allow enlisted men off-base without at least three free condoms on their person. Of course, the Marine corps provided a nice size basket of condoms on the outbound gate from the base. Take a hint here... :-)
Now the big one. basically - "is health care a right, just like freedom of speech, worship(or not worship), gun ownership, confront accusers, etc". Lets first take the philosophical argument, and work down from there. In Utopia, all things would be paid for, there would be no strife, no murder, mayhem, theft, full employment, and of course - perfect health for all. Utopian ideals are great. But - lets not kid ourselves, aside from the Greek states from the pre-christian era, the concept of a utopian society is a pipe dream. But - we can strive for a utopia, and we should work toward a goal of all these good things. No strife, theft, murder, we have full employment and everyone is provided great health care. Note however - aside from one exception, all those other things don't require the labor, and lifetime study of another. One can not kill each other on our own, we can not steal from others on our own, we can employ ourselves, or seek employment from others(not that they are required to employ anyone). To summarize, we can all PURSUE happiness, but that does not guarantee the outcome of happiness.
Getting further into the grittiness of this debate - I don't know what you do for a living, what your vocation is but let me pose a question to you. Suppose in the next go around of political discourse, and you were a private worker for a company or in individual contributor that overnight the govt decided to socialize your vocation. Snap! Now, everything you do, every decision you make, every task you perform, and every payment you received were suddenly bounded and defined by a schedule of some bureaucratic part of the fedguv. In fact, it would be a GS-11 who decide that your time was worth between X and Y, and if you wanted to stay in your chosen field, you could no longer charge Z, but had to be within the bounds of X and Y for your remuneration. Furthermore - not only were you limited on what you would be paid by the constraints of law, but you could NOT opt out of the system, and go on your own and charge what the market would bear. You would be constrained, to do your job, get your pre-defined pay, and be happy about it. Socialism is great on the giving end but it suck hind teat on the receiving end. To put it plainly, there is no other right, or even a natural law that requires the support and labor of another to satisfy the publics right. Does that really seem fair? Should doctors be reduced to simply garbage men of the human body by removing something that doesn't belong, or clearing out junk in the body that is causing a mess? Of course not.
Market forces. A nose job by an intern from Univ of Guadalajara with no experience might run you $12,000. A nose job from the top plastic surgeon in Hollywood might run you $80,000. Is it fair that these two functions are equivalent? If course not. So - the govt has an answer for that. The intern with one year of residence might be allowed to charge GS-9 pay scale. While the seasoned veteran from Hollywood could charge GS-17 scale. But - the key point here, is when it comes down to it, the govt is setting the pay scale, and NOT the individual. This might work for the armed forces, where a private makes squat, and a general makes big bucks, but is this the model we want to force on the health care industry.
Management and monitoring. I won't tell you how I know but I can tell you with some degree of certainty, that the govt has exposed about 80% of Obamacare client records to hackers. That is 80%!! When the Dr had your private health file, in paper, stuck in his back office, the chances of your file becoming public was about 0.05%. No one broke into Dr office to steal client records. No one. But now - the govt mandated centralized management and monitoring of your records under federal control. Have they done a perfect job? A great job? A good job? A poor job? A failing job? You know the answer. If the govt has your health records, and they control the means, methods, and cost of your health care - what do you suppose will happen to your choices and privacy, and relationship with your personal MD? Suppose the govt decides that at 85 years old, you are no longer worth extensive cancer invasive surgery? No matter that you can and would be willing to pay for it - since it's now a 'right' and all health care is mandated, that decision is no longer up to you. It's up to a GS-9, in an office, in a gray building in Bethesda MD. WTF? That is where single payer health care is headed. Think it can't happen? What about as a pilot with a special issuance? Haven't faced that yet? Well, I did and sure as hell there was a GS-7, sitting in an office in OKC deciding whether I would ever get to exercise the privilege of my certificate again. Extend that to US health care, and you will know what it's like. I HATED it. To call and supplicate some boney-ass civil servant so that I could still fly my personal plane, with my own money, in my own country was disgusting, and that is where federally mandated health care is going.
Taxes are a necessary evil. Recall that I started out saying I was a borderline anarchist. While I spent 5 years as a govt employee, I gave full measure to the citizens I defended and was happy to be part of the 'common defense'. I can even bend my anarchy to understand, support and even grudgingly agree with some social common welfare. I posted some of them, and admit that they are useful for a functioning, and advancing society. Roads, fire equipment, libraries, schools, and a few other things like ATC, I can even go along with some modest future looking advances like the NASA system, and nuclear research. We are a first world country, and by gosh we should lead the world in those fields. Having said that - where are we at now? Take a look at the damn budget. We've spent literally billions of dollars paying OTHER countries to not grow sugar cane. We spend half a billion on a private company to develop and market solar panels, but the money goes into the pocket of millionaires and we get nothing! We subsidize trillion dollar companies to grow the right crop(and not grow the wrong crop!) and then, and then! we subsidize them again for adding their product to motor fuels! Does this sound like good governance? When the govt goes on a bender and we then have to 'shut down', they say that only "essential govt services will be funded". WTF? WHY is there a non-essential govt service? Huh? I don't get it. Why would the US take money out of the private economy, so they can fund a study by Berkeley about the potential capture and use of bovine methane generation? Is that a function that the US taxpayer should be paying for?
Now I'll mention, not only are we paying for this kind of above stuff, we are borrowing from foreign companies, so that we can then send the money we pay interest on to other poor countries so they like us. Insanity. And there are people who defend this behavior. Well, lets just take this insanity, and extend it to - of all things personal health care. What could go wrong? How can a market, that is already saturated with overhead costs be any worse. I know - lets add federal bureaucracy and see how that works. A website that the market could produce for $10,000 costs $60 million - and doesn't work. Registrations are mandated, but the registration system is broken, so you have to register to register, and then when the system is finally working, go back and re-register again. You have to pay(well, actually you have to 'say' you paid), but since there is a no-reject clause, or a must treat clause, including you can't be turned down clause - why would anyone bother to pay?(many many didn't pay their premiums, but are still being treated, which is why Anthem just dropped out of another market).
What couldn't go more wrong than the prospect of adding the fedguv to health care. But - that's just the economic equation. The real stickler is that all citizens are mandated to engage in commerce with some health care producer. Not provider, but health care producer(read - insurance). And the final thought is that as a new undefined 'right' a health care provider(doctor, nurse, etc) must provide their vocation, and their labor because now rights are a function of what is good for the individual, and damn the rights of the providing person. Crazy...
-
I'm going to do my best to answer these issues you've brought up, but I'm not going to nest them. And remember, I'm a borderline anarchist, who masquerades as a conservative/libertarian.
....
big snip
What couldn't go more wrong than the prospect of adding the fedguv to health care. But - that's just the economic equation. The real stickler is that all citizens are mandated to engage in commerce with some health care producer. Not provider, but health care producer(read - insurance). And the final thought is that as a new undefined 'right' a health care provider(doctor, nurse, etc) must provide their vocation, and their labor because now rights are a function of what is good for the individual, and damn the rights of the providing person. Crazy...
Yup. I always thought that the only place this could go is for the government to mandate your job. Doctors are quitting, or going into private concierge, but that brings us back to classism. We can't be having that. In England with their socialized medicine you can still go see a private doctor. Hillary already said TWO DECADES AGO that when she gets the U.S. its national healthcare system she wants to make it illegal to see a doctor privately outside the system. Remember that? (Although I'm sure she and the other elite politicians will manage to get their healthcare any way they want).
-
Yes.
It is much easier to propose something that you know won't pass than it is to pass something that might come back to haunt you.
When my wife asks me where to go to dinner, I rattle off a few all-you-can-eat buffets or maybe a fried chicken or pizza place. I know she will veto them.
But when I think she will actually abide by my wishes (like on my birthday), I will suggest something much more acceptable that I still like, but won't piss her off too much.
Smart move if you want to get reelected to another term as Husband!
-
Taxes are a necessity of a civilized society, no way around it. You may believe it is being taken from you by force, but there isn't a way around it. Funny how the argument usually boils down to dollars - generally follows the line that someone is getting something for free and I'm paying for it, and I don't like it. Wish we could all pick and choose what our tax dollars go for, most likely the services provided by our government would be quite different.
Hey Gary, how much is a "fair share"? Give us a hard percentage.
-
I would be in favor of SOME govt funded health care. But we all know it's the camel's nose scenario all over again. Just like with SS. First - SS just paid a part of one's retirement income. In fact, it was designed as 'Supplemental Security' to supplement the workers retirement because many large companies still offered retirement packages which were funded by the company. Law of unintended consequence. Since the major employers now saw that the fedguv was offering retirement income - what do you suppose they did? Sure, they got rid of, or scaled back their own retirement payments. Apply this logic to health care and lets say we want to offer ONLY well-baby care to expectant mothers. Everything is going along fine, well-baby care is doing it's job and the feds are picking up the tab. For the long term we are reducing the strain on health care because a healthy baby grows into a more healthy adult. Makes perfect sense.
You know what happens. The moment a liberal senator or HR member hears that a well-baby exam has turned up a problem in utero, and there's some serious problem with the baby, and the mother won't consider abortion, the hand wringing and finger pointing will start. 'Congress refuses to care for pregnant mother who just wants a healthy baby!' the headline will scream. Who could vote against extending well-baby care to unwell-baby care? What could anyone say against having unhealthy babies made healthy on the govt dime? And so it begins.
This is the mantra of universal healthcare. That it's better to treat the patient early, and keep them from getting to a serious stage later. More cost effective. Well guess what. People get old, people get sicker, people have complex medical problems, and people die. To our 85YO patient with a serious cancer problem. Maybe they want to pay to be treated. Maybe they don't want to pay, maybe they have been paying private insurance for 50 years, and will stick the insurer with the bill. No where in that sentence is the fedguv even mentioned, or needed. Universal health care - all those decisions are taken out of the hands of the patient and the MDs who will treat him, and given to a hack with a quota to meet; 'well, sorry but we only have $30 BILLION in the account for that kind of cancer treatment, so you'll just have to wait until next Sept when the budget comes out. Maybe then we'll be able to treat your stage 4 cancer. Yeah, uh-huh, well buh-bye, and we'll call you, really we will.' Alternatively, there really will be no death panels. Maybe that's all a myth and everything will be fully funded all the time. So the old guy gets his cancer treatment, and the well baby clinics do a great business, and I can go in and have the wax removed from my ears for free($25 copay), and all is right with the world. Price tag? Oh no, oh you don't want to hear that. It's all part of the RIGHTS of the people.
It's happening as I write this; https://www.yahoo.com/news/cbo-likely-say-millions-lose-coverage-senate-health-care-bill-215135603.html
'millions will lose health coverage under GOP bill'. Uh - the majority of them can have all the health coverage they can and will pay for. What they will LOSE is me and you, and other taxpayers picking up their insurance premiums. Hey - I know, I'll just start sending all my insurance premiums to the fedguv. Let them write the check. After all, it's free money right? No one has to work and pay taxes. The govt just fires up the press and prints more. What could go wrong?
-
The Senate Republican bill looks to penalize people if they have a lapse in coverage:
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/339488-senate-adds-penalty-for-going-uninsured-to-healthcare-bill
I understand why they'd want to add the provision, but we might as well just keep Obamacare if this is the road we're going to take. This bill needs to get voted down. 7 years and this is all the Republicans can show for it. If the Democrats weren't so busy being negative, screaming about Russia, and still licking their wounds from the election, they'd have a great way to go after Republicans in the mid terms (and some certainly will).
-
The Senate Republican bill looks to penalize people if they have a lapse in coverage:
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/339488-senate-adds-penalty-for-going-uninsured-to-healthcare-bill
I understand why they'd want to add the provision, but we might as well just keep Obamacare if this is the road we're going to take. This bill needs to get voted down. 7 years and this is all the Republicans can show for it. If the Democrats weren't so busy being negative, screaming about Russia, and still licking their wounds from the election, they'd have a great way to go after Republicans in the mid terms (and some certainly will).
Agree with you, it's just another mandate.
-
Hey Gary, how much is a "fair share"? Give us a hard percentage.
Where did I mention "fair share"? No idea how to quantify, pretty sure everyone would have a different number.
-
Where did I mention "fair share"? No idea how to quantify, pretty sure everyone would have a different number.
I agree taxes are a necessary evil. The problem with government is that they continually want to expand, and get into more stuff, therefore always want more tax revenue. Both Republicans (most), and Democrats are happy with that.
-
Where did I mention "fair share"? No idea how to quantify, pretty sure everyone would have a different number.
How about we take the total individual and family tax levy, divide it by the number of taxpayers and use that is the "fair share". Can't get much fairer than that.
-
Where did I mention "fair share"? No idea how to quantify, pretty sure everyone would have a different number.
You guys are always saying the"rich" don't pay their fair share. Just wondering if you've seen the talking points that have a hard number as to what is "fair."
-
The federal government has NO PLACE in the relationship between a patient and their doctor, anymore than they do in the relationship between a lawyer and their client, or a priest and a congregant.
So, of course, you're totally against the government passing laws regarding a woman's reproductive system.
Oh, that's right. wonderful double standard you have
-
So, of course, you're totally against the government passing laws regarding a woman's reproductive system.
Oh, that's right. wonderful double standard you have
Yes, I know this a straw man argument, but I'll respond anyway. Most of the problem a lot of us have with abortion other than it being akin to murder is that it is often funded by our tax dollars.
-
You guys are always saying the"rich" don't pay their fair share. Just wondering if you've seen the talking points that have a hard number as to what is "fair."
Who are "you guys"? You appear to assume that I'm one of those far left progressive kooks. My opinions are certainly further left than yours, but that leaves a lot of space.
Sure, seen the "fair share" talking points. That's as vague as "living wage" or "market based solutions". Sounds good, appeals to the base but impossible to quantify.
-
Yes, I know this a straw man argument, but I'll respond anyway. Most of the problem a lot of us have with abortion other than it being akin to murder is that it is often funded by our tax dollars.
Why is that a straw man argument? The decision to have an elective abortion is very personal, emotional and most certainly involves a doctor.
As far as Federal dollars going to elective abortions, those doing so are breaking the law.
-
Who are "you guys"? You appear to assume that I'm one of those far left progressive kooks.
You sure have done your best to foster that opinion.
My opinions are certainly further left than yours, but that leaves a lot of space.
I can agree with that.
Sure, seen the "fair share" talking points. That's as vague as "living wage" or "market based solutions". Sounds good, appeals to the base but impossible to quantify.
There may be a little hope for you after all.
-
Why is that a straw man argument? The decision to have an elective abortion is very personal, emotional and most certainly involves a doctor.
As far as Federal dollars going to elective abortions, those doing so are breaking the law.
Planned Parenthood has been braking the law since the 70s. I'm not going to look it up but pretty sure nearly half their funding is from federal sources. About all they do is provide abortions to low income women. Now, I'm not complaining that low income women want and need abortions, I'm fine with that, but my take is, you want the govt to pay for your abortion, you get sterilized.
There are women who have gone to PPH more than a dozen times for abortions. Many women getting an abortion there are repeat customers. Using fed funded PPH as a birth control method is idiotic. But it's only a part of the idiotic stuff the govt does.
-
So, of course, you're totally against the government passing laws regarding a woman's reproductive system.
Oh, that's right. wonderful double standard you have
I am totally against the govt having any say, or opinion between a citizen and their Dr. This goes for men, women, black, white, sick, healthy, christian, muslim, etc.
So - what's the double standard you are referring to? More to the point, what role should a govt have in the relationship between a patient and Dr?
-
I'm not going to look it up but pretty sure nearly half their funding is from federal sources. About all they do is provide abortions to low income women.
According to PP's 2015 annual report, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report they get 41% of their operating revenue from "Government Health Services Reimbursements and Grants." Most of what they do is testing for STDs (45%) and contraception (30%), other women's health services (14%), and cancer screening (7%) Only 3% of their medical services are abortions.
I agree that government should not be paying for abortions. I also question whether government should be paying for contraception. However, a large part of what PP provides seems to be an important and useful service. Can these services be done at one's family doctor? Sure. But more medical care for low income people with limited options has to be a good thing.
-
There is film around of former PP executives admitting that they got all involved in sex education specifically to expand the number of abortions they could sell.
-
Planned Parenthood has been braking the law since the 70s. I'm not going to look it up but pretty sure nearly half their funding is from federal sources. About all they do is provide abortions to low income women. Now, I'm not complaining that low income women want and need abortions, I'm fine with that, but my take is, you want the govt to pay for your abortion, you get sterilized.
There are women who have gone to PPH more than a dozen times for abortions. Many women getting an abortion there are repeat customers. Using fed funded PPH as a birth control method is idiotic. But it's only a part of the idiotic stuff the govt does.
I think you're mistaken about what portion of Planned Parenthood is abortion services, whether you're talking by service count or by revenue.
-
There is film around of former PP executives admitting that they got all involved in sex education specifically to expand the number of abortions they could sell.
Sex education helps prevent pregnancy. I don't follow how this would help them.
-
Planned Parenthood has been braking the law since the 70s. I'm not going to look it up but pretty sure nearly half their funding is from federal sources. About all they do is provide abortions to low income women. Now, I'm not complaining that low income women want and need abortions, I'm fine with that, but my take is, you want the govt to pay for your abortion, you get sterilized.
There are women who have gone to PPH more than a dozen times for abortions. Many women getting an abortion there are repeat customers. Using fed funded PPH as a birth control method is idiotic. But it's only a part of the idiotic stuff the govt does.
I agree with the above, but I am once again going to propose a compromise, even though almost all of my previous calls for compromise have been shot down by the ideologues.
How about the second or even the third abortion would require permanent sterilization. Dems often use the camel's nose strategy to get what they want. Why can't we?
-
Sex education helps prevent pregnancy. I don't follow how this would help them.
When I was in school, sex education was more of a "how to" class. Admittedly, that was a long time ago, but I just don't think it is effective on young people.
If I thought it worked as prevention, I might support it.
-
I agree with the above, but I am once again going to propose a compromise, even though almost all of my previous calls for compromise have been shot down by the ideologues.
How about the second or even the third abortion would require permanent sterilization. Dems often use the camel's nose strategy to get what they want. Why can't we?
I agree with you conceptually. :) However, I doubt any politician would sign on to that due to cries of cruelty, and "inhumanity", etc. It just wouldn't sell.
-
According to PP's 2015 annual report, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report they get 41% of their operating revenue from "Government Health Services Reimbursements and Grants." Most of what they do is testing for STDs (45%) and contraception (30%), other women's health services (14%), and cancer screening (7%) Only 3% of their medical services are abortions.
I agree that government should not be paying for abortions. I also question whether government should be paying for contraception. However, a large part of what PP provides seems to be an important and useful service. Can these services be done at one's family doctor? Sure. But more medical care for low income people with limited options has to be a good thing.
Alrighty, so they are only breaking the law 3% of the time. (not that I trust anything from their own annual report, but it is what you have, so...) As for their funding, we are paying 41% of their budget. Hmmmm, guess we're getting our money's worth if it includes limiting repro from the parasite class.
-
So, I googled PPH just because. And guess what i found!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/21/planned-parenthood-spent-734000-failed-georgia-rac/
Not only are our tax dollars being spent aborting low income babies, but guess what! My taxes were used to fund a political candidate that I did not want, endorse, or even able to vote for!
Nice work if you can get it. Lets see, 734,000 x 0.41 = $300,940 tax dollars to fail to elect a liberal jerk from CA in a race in GA.
C'mon libs. Defend it. Suppose YOUR $301k tax dollars were spent on a HR seat race in TX to unseat a republican. You - would - be - apoplectic. And rightly so.
-
factcheck.org comes up with a 12% based on patients seen:
However, critics of the 3 percent figure note that an abortion isn’t equivalent to other individual services, such as giving out condoms or providing pregnancy tests.
On the other hand, if the number of abortions performed is divided by the total number of people served (2.7 million), that would mean roughly 12 percent of clients received an abortion. But that’s also assuming no person received more than one abortion.
— D’Angelo Gore
And - they come up with an interesting caveat; Assuming no person received more than one abortion is patently false. I personally know of a woman in Austin TX who has had three in the past 5 years at PPH. She is not an outlier.
-
factcheck.org comes up with a 12% based on patients seen:
However, critics of the 3 percent figure note that an abortion isn’t equivalent to other individual services, such as giving out condoms or providing pregnancy tests.
On the other hand, if the number of abortions performed is divided by the total number of people served (2.7 million), that would mean roughly 12 percent of clients received an abortion. But that’s also assuming no person received more than one abortion.
— D’Angelo Gore
And - they come up with an interesting caveat; Assuming no person received more than one abortion is patently false. I personally know of a woman in Austin TX who has had three in the past 5 years at PPH. She is not an outlier.
Well, she sure is lying somewhere! ::)
-
tishhhh-bang!!
(rimshot)
8)
-
How about the second or even the third abortion would require permanent sterilization. Dems often use the camel's nose strategy to get what they want. Why can't we?
Why should the federal government be paying for any of it?
-
Why should the federal government be paying for any of it?
There's a book that I can't recall right now that did an admirable job of equating interesting social constructs with their economic and/or financial outcome. It was a rather Quixotic look at the law of unintended consequence.
One part of the book dealt with the Roe v Wade decision, and how it changed the shape of the future criminal element. I don't know the exact discussion but what it boiled down to was this: Poor, disenfranchised people were more likely to seek free, or illegal abortions, and be struggling to afford them. Therefore, more cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement all around as unwanted babies were carried to term, and thrust into poverty in the next generation. Which leads to - greater crime. The change after Roe v Wade and the now more available abortions(PPH) allowed the poverty stricken to afford, and access abortions, thus reducing the cycle of poverty in general and the level of criminality in specific. Therefore - more abortions for poor disenfranchised women led to fewer poor families, and lowered crime.
My take was this is fine, as long as the barn is closed after the horse is - well, removed - so to speak. No more horses means no more horse-shit.
-
There's a book that I can't recall right now that did an admirable job of equating interesting social constructs with their economic and/or financial outcome. It was a rather Quixotic look at the law of unintended consequence.
One part of the book dealt with the Roe v Wade decision, and how it changed the shape of the future criminal element. I don't know the exact discussion but what it boiled down to was this: Poor, disenfranchised people were more likely to seek free, or illegal abortions, and be struggling to afford them. Therefore, more cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement all around as unwanted babies were carried to term, and thrust into poverty in the next generation. Which leads to - greater crime. The change after Roe v Wade and the now more available abortions(PPH) allowed the poverty stricken to afford, and access abortions, thus reducing the cycle of poverty in general and the level of criminality in specific. Therefore - more abortions for poor disenfranchised women led to fewer poor families, and lowered crime.
My take was this is fine, as long as the barn is closed after the horse is - well, removed - so to speak. No more horses means no more horse-shit.
I take issue with that. It's just a premise, likely flawed, to justify why abortions are acceptable. That means that, at the federal level, everyone who is against abortions not only has to accept it, but has to accept that their tax dollars are being used to fund it. I understand there are laws on the books that say it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it's not happening anyway.
I've posted this before, but according to the liberal Brookings Institution, there are three simple rules that, if followed, will significantly reduce your chances at living in poverty. I would suggest that these three are probably better than providing a means to legal abortions (at the federal level) and trying to justify that it's a good way to reduce crime and poverty.
1. Graduate high school
2. Get a full time job
3. Don't have kids until you're married
That's it. Pretty simple.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/
-
There's a book that I can't recall right now that did an admirable job of equating interesting social constructs with their economic and/or financial outcome. It was a rather Quixotic look at the law of unintended consequence.
One part of the book dealt with the Roe v Wade decision, and how it changed the shape of the future criminal element. I don't know the exact discussion but what it boiled down to was this: Poor, disenfranchised people were more likely to seek free, or illegal abortions, and be struggling to afford them. Therefore, more cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement all around as unwanted babies were carried to term, and thrust into poverty in the next generation. Which leads to - greater crime. The change after Roe v Wade and the now more available abortions(PPH) allowed the poverty stricken to afford, and access abortions, thus reducing the cycle of poverty in general and the level of criminality in specific. Therefore - more abortions for poor disenfranchised women led to fewer poor families, and lowered crime.
My take was this is fine, as long as the barn is closed after the horse is - well, removed - so to speak. No more horses means no more horse-shit.
Freakonomics?
It also debunked the idea that the more money you spend on a campaign the more likely you are to win. It said the candidate with the most APPEAL wins. If they tend to spend more money, then it is association not causation, because their appeal attracts more donors. Didn't someone post here recently that Hillary spent three times what Trump did? An unusual case where the one who spent less won the election. It's because Trump had more appeal, apparently.
-
Freakonomics?
It also debunked the idea that the more money you spend on a campaign the more likely you are to win. It said the candidate with the most APPEAL wins. If they tend to spend more money, then it is association not causation, because their appeal attracts more donors. Didn't someone post here recently that Hillary spent three times what Trump did? An unusual case where the one who spent less won the election. It's because Trump had more appeal, apparently.
bingo! thx. Was a fascinating read.
-
Why should the federal government be paying for any of it?
That depends on what you mean by "should". You can ask the question in one of two ways, and this includes questions about why the government should subsidize contraception, too.
One answer is that we shouldn't ever subsidize this stuff because people should take responsibility for their own actions. This is a valid point.
The other answer says we should subsidize this stuff because it makes so much economic sense to us all, reduces costs, reduces suffering, etc. Despite the purist view of responsibility, etc.
-
That depends on what you mean by "should". You can ask the question in one of two ways, and this includes questions about why the government should subsidize contraception, too.
One answer is that we shouldn't ever subsidize this stuff because people should take responsibility for their own actions. This is a valid point.
The other answer says we should subsidize this stuff because it makes so much economic sense to us all, reduces costs, reduces suffering, etc. Despite the purist view of responsibility, etc.
So the federal government should subsidize poor behavior and poor decisions? I'm against the federal government funding contraception as well, because now they're funding a recreational activity.
-
I take issue with that. It's just a premise, likely flawed, to justify why abortions are acceptable. That means that, at the federal level, everyone who is against abortions not only has to accept it, but has to accept that their tax dollars are being used to fund it. I understand there are laws on the books that say it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it's not happening anyway.
I've posted this before, but according to the liberal Brookings Institution, there are three simple rules that, if followed, will significantly reduce your chances at living in poverty. I would suggest that these three are probably better than providing a means to legal abortions (at the federal level) and trying to justify that it's a good way to reduce crime and poverty.
1. Graduate high school
2. Get a full time job
3. Don't have kids until you're married
That's it. Pretty simple.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/
Yes, I'm aware, and don't disagree with a word of that. Quite logical, and a good plan to follow all around. Please note the highlighted part above.
How many disaffected inner-city, poverty stricken, low information type citizens will follow that? You think they pay attention when some old, rich, whitey(Bernie, Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer) tells the citizens? And so they hear it, and what if they don't take the advice? Alternatives?
-
Yes, I'm aware, and don't disagree with a word of that. Quite logical, and a good plan to follow all around. Please note the highlighted part above.
How many disaffected inner-city, poverty stricken, low information type citizens will follow that? You think they pay attention when some old, rich, whitey(Bernie, Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer) tells the citizens? And so they hear it, and what if they don't take the advice? Alternatives?
There are tons of community outreach programs. Churches and other such organizations are constantly out there working to improve their communities in every aspect. I don't claim to have all the answers and I understand that reality being what it is, it's not going work everywhere. I would submit that federal government funding abortions is not the right answer, though.
-
There are tons of community outreach programs. Churches and other such organizations are constantly out there working to improve their communities in every aspect. I don't claim to have all the answers and I understand that reality being what it is, it's not going work everywhere. I would submit that federal government funding abortions is not the right answer, though.
The flip side is the Feds also incentivize having more children as they pay support per child. So we are paying for abortions, and also paying for the ones they want to keep to drive up their subsidies. Madness.
-
I take issue with that. It's just a premise, likely flawed, to justify why abortions are acceptable.
I think the guy was truly trying to get to the facts, not push an agenda one way or the other. If it is true (that Roe V Wade led to reduction in crime 20 years later) that doesn't mean I support abortion. I still think it's murder. But I am interested in knowing the facts nevertheless. One of the things proposed as an explanation for the reduction in crime is loosening of conceal carry laws. Another is increase of policemen. I'd rather those be true. Personally I'm still open to learning more facts one way or the other, objective ones which might be hard to come by. I do get the idea the author leans left. But it's been years since I've read the book so not sure.
I've posted this before, but according to the liberal Brookings Institution, there are three simple rules that, if followed, will significantly reduce your chances at living in poverty. I would suggest that these three are probably better than providing a means to legal abortions (at the federal level) and trying to justify that it's a good way to reduce crime and poverty.
1. Graduate high school
2. Get a full time job
3. Don't have kids until you're married
That's it. Pretty simple.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/
The problem with that research is you cannot do a double blind controlled study. You cannot control for the factors that led one child to do those things and not the next child. Personally I believe there is a very strong genetic component, a "criminal" gene even if you will. No that does not mean I support eugenics. This gene isn't really one gene but likely a constellation of factors including personality disorders, such as inability to delay gratification, low tolerance for frustration, tendency to depression, etc. Perhaps there are environmental factors such as poor diet which leads to inferior brain development and ADHD or other obstacles to staying in school. Then there is the social environment such as peer pressure to join gangs.
In the book "Meanings of Life" Baumeister asks the question why do teenage girls have babies out of wedlock despite knowing how it cripples their future? The answer he came up with is that if you live in poverty without much hope for meaningful career, you find "meaning and purpose" in whatever is handy, and becoming a mother instantly grants a ton of purpose and status that a young female in poverty is not able to find any other way.
My personal theory is that until certain economic realities are corrected, the problem will remain. One of the biggest is the closure of inner city factories. This is when the African American community lost jobs. Also the death of passenger train travel. Being a conductor on the train system was one of the few available ladders out of poverty into the middle class for blacks. There are many other reasons people in these communities are trapped and it is easier said than done for them to just "get a job" but all of these reasons boil down to the erosion of a healthy manufacturing economy, and were watered by destructive welfare state policies.
A great book illustrating this is "Hillbilly Efigy". It portrays a similar situation among poor whites in Appalachia. According to the author, it's almost hopeless for a young person to escape unless he has a mentor or sponsor to guide him out of poverty. He also does a great job presenting the case for conservative economic policy being the best hope, again, the liberal "war on poverty" has only made everything worse.
But I agree those three things are what they must do if they are to escape. It's just that I don't think they CAN do them, for the most part, under a suffocating economy, so burdened with regulation, taxes and restrictions.
-
There are tons of community outreach programs. Churches and other such organizations are constantly out there working to improve their communities in every aspect. I don't claim to have all the answers and I understand that reality being what it is, it's not going work everywhere. I would submit that federal government funding abortions is not the right answer, though.
Well, good for us, providing such a strong and positive safety net. And yet - have one of the highest unwed mother in poverty rates of any country on the planet. I say - good show, good show indeed.
Federal funding of abortions is reducing cost, crime and poverty - so say Freakanomics, and I happen to agree(the numbers are quite compelling, and bear reading). Add sterilization to the fed funding of abortions, and I believe we have a real winner. And hey - I'm a borderline anarchist.
-
Why should the federal government be paying for any of it?
What part of the word "compromise" didn't you understand?
Of course I would prefer the government got out of it altogether. But about half of the country doesn't. So rather than get none of what I want, I am willing to settle for something so that both sides don't have to be quite so pissed off. Don't you get tired of all the hard core partisanship and division?
Sorry, but I am not an ideologue; at least on this issue.
-
What part of the word "compromise" didn't you understand?
Of course I would prefer the government got out of it altogether. But about half of the country doesn't. So rather than get none of what I want, I am willing to settle for something so that both sides don't have to be quite so pissed off. Don't you get tired of all the hard core partisanship and division?
Sorry, but I am not an ideologue; at least on this issue.
I never get tired of defending the Constitution. 8)
-
So the federal government should subsidize poor behavior and poor decisions? I'm against the federal government funding contraception as well, because now they're funding a recreational activity.
There is that "should" again.
-
What part of the word "compromise" didn't you understand?
Of course I would prefer the government got out of it altogether. But about half of the country doesn't. So rather than get none of what I want, I am willing to settle for something so that both sides don't have to be quite so pissed off. Don't you get tired of all the hard core partisanship and division?
Sorry, but I am not an ideologue; at least on this issue.
In all seriousness, I'm willing to compromise on certain things. Federal funding of abortion is nothing something I'm willing to compromise for a couple of reasons. The biggest reason is that it is not stated in the Constitution as being a function of the federal government or a right of a person that needs to be protected. If a state government wants to pay for it, or allow it, then that's a totally different argument.
-
The issue I take with compromise is that in all cases the conservatives are the ones compromising their ideology in a train of ever left wing movement. Some of it is good. Most of it is bad.
The recent clear example is right here in this thread. It's about govt funded healthcare. does anyone realize how absolutely ludicrous this would have sounded in the late 1800s? Any pol advising this would have been derided as insane, to propose some kind of fed health financial benefit. SS? Another left socialist tool bore from the fruit of the depression(thanks again dems). Already mentioned the many, many social programs avail for low income and poverty class. Johnson's Great Society(what a boondoggle), etc. the US has moved left on almost all large programs for the past 100 years. So - what, more 'compromise' but - only for the right. Compromise to me cuts like this:
You have access to fed funded abortions(whether some admit it or not, the reality is that it's there) now. You will have the same access as before, but you will now have to undergo sterilization along with your abortion, because you can't keep it in your pants AND you can't provide for yourself or your child. Deal? This is compromise, I'm not taking anything the fedguv currently gives, but giving even more public service for no extra charge.
-
Yes, I'm aware, and don't disagree with a word of that. Quite logical, and a good plan to follow all around. Please note the highlighted part above.
How many disaffected inner-city, poverty stricken, low information type citizens will follow that? You think they pay attention when some old, rich, whitey(Bernie, Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer) tells the citizens? And so they hear it, and what if they don't take the advice? Alternatives?
Let them suffer the consequences of their choices. It's not just advice, it's a real-world, fixed equation for success or failure; its results can be seen just by looking around.
We have to come to the point where we're willing to stop subsidizing bad choices, even if we must let several million people suffer for a time now so that countless millions will NOT suffer later.
-
Let them suffer the consequences of their choices. It's not just advice, it's a real-world, fixed equation for success or failure; its results can be seen just by looking around.
We have to come to the point where we're willing to stop subsidizing bad choices, even if we must let several million people suffer for a time now so that countless millions will NOT suffer later.
Works for me too. If the woman comes in for abortion/sterilization and decides to keep her child, she is warned - 'no fed benefits for you, or baby. You are on your own all the way'. A decided move toward anarchy which is always good.
-
I take issue with that. It's just a premise, likely flawed, to justify why abortions are acceptable. That means that, at the federal level, everyone who is against abortions not only has to accept it, but has to accept that their tax dollars are being used to fund it. I understand there are laws on the books that say it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it's not happening anyway.
That argument is easily turned around. Why should those that oppose abortions set the law of the land when many believe otherwise? A major point in a lot of these posts is that the Federal government is paying for discretionary abortions. As you mention, that is illegal. I'd be happy to change my opinion, should be easy to find examples of Federally funded discretionary abortions.
I've posted this before, but according to the liberal Brookings Institution, there are three simple rules that, if followed, will significantly reduce your chances at living in poverty. I would suggest that these three are probably better than providing a means to legal abortions (at the federal level) and trying to justify that it's a good way to reduce crime and poverty.
1. Graduate high school
2. Get a full time job
3. Don't have kids until you're married
That's it. Pretty simple.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/
Those are good rules.
-
Let them suffer the consequences of their choices. It's not just advice, it's a real-world, fixed equation for success or failure; its results can be seen just by looking around.
We have to come to the point where we're willing to stop subsidizing bad choices, even if we must let several million people suffer for a time now so that countless millions will NOT suffer later.
Believe that Marie Antoinette had similar beliefs. ;)
In my mind, it is a grey area where the government should draw the line between subsidizing those that are truly in need verses those in need through their own poor decisions. Personally I'd rather err on the side of some getting aid they may not deserve while not penalizing those that truly need it. Where that line is drawn is admittantly difficult.
-
Believe that Marie Antoinette had similar beliefs. ;)
In my mind, it is a grey area where the government should draw the line between subsidizing those that are truly in need verses those in need through their own poor decisions. Personally I'd rather err on the side of some getting aid they may not deserve while not penalizing those that truly need it. Where that line is drawn is admittantly difficult.
I'm almost centrist enough to almost somewhat, partially agree with that.
The problem is that Democrats use that as an excuse to lavish people with free stuff with little means testing and support. If you want to provide a safety net for the "truly needy", you need to draw a very firm line as to who qualifies, and for how long, and then enforce it. If you merely make benefits available to the truly needy, then everyone that doesn't own an airplane (and some that do) will make a case that they are truly needy. Personally, I NEED an air conditioner in the Bonanza.
-
I'm almost centrist enough to almost somewhat, partially agree with that.
Appreciate your support... sort of.. ;D
The problem is that Democrats use that as an excuse to lavish people with free stuff with little means testing and support. If you want to provide a safety net for the "truly needy", you need to draw a very firm line as to who qualifies, and for how long, and then enforce it. If you merely make benefits available to the truly needy, then everyone that doesn't own an airplane (and some that do) will make a case that they are truly needy. Personally, I NEED an air conditioner in the Bonanza.
I believe you have hit on an important point, enforcement. When legislation is passed, it it usually kinda vague and almost a "one size fits all". See this all the time on the environmental side. Leaves a lot of open issues and a lack of clarity. Those government agencies that have to enforce those laws generally write up their own regulation and guidance documents to implement the law. Often those regulations and guidance documents are equally vague. IMHO, that is why we see so many appeals to the courts for clarification.
This is particularly true when I look at the major causes of fraud, whether it be Medicaid, Medicare or SNAP. It isn't some single Mom trying to squeeze a few extra bucks, the big multi-million cases are a group of people deliberately scamming the system. Do wish we had better enforcement.
BTW - do agree that you need AC in a Bonanza on a hot sunny day.
-
There is that "should" again.
You're just splitting hairs to cloud a perfectly clear point,
When the taxpayers are extorted from to fund the vote buying schemes of otherwise unattractive politicians, it will often, if not always, result in more behavior of the kind that caused to original funding "need."
-
They write vague laws, and don't enforce them solely to buy votes. Welfare, and subsidies for the poor are not about helping them, but about getting politicians re-elected. They don't want to "fix" the problem, they want to perpetuate it. And that is Democrats, and many establishment Republicans.
-
That depends on what you mean by "should". You can ask the question in one of two ways, and this includes questions about why the government should subsidize contraception, too.
One answer is that we shouldn't ever subsidize this stuff because people should take responsibility for their own actions. This is a valid point.
The other answer says we should subsidize this stuff because it makes so much economic sense to us all, reduces costs, reduces suffering, etc. Despite the purist view of responsibility, etc.
You know what really reduces costs? KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS.
That's all the sex education kids need to have in pubic school.
-
You know what really reduces costs? KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS.
That's all the sex education kids need to have in pubic school.
Utter bullshit. That's the ancient neanderthal view of sex ed. The 'ole aspirin between the knees bit. Just don't have sex you pervy teens.
Real sex ed, in combination with easy access to contraception, works. Large percentages of teens will have sex. Always have, always will, no matter what we say or do. We are biologically driven to do so. Let's acknowledge that, and handle accordingly.
-
Utter bullshit. That's the ancient neanderthal view of sex ed. The 'ole aspirin between the knees bit. Just don't have sex you pervy teens.
Real sex ed, in combination with easy access to contraception, works. Large percentages of teens will have sex. Always have, always will, no matter what we say or do. We are biologically driven to do so. Let's acknowledge that, and handle accordingly.
Yup. Man speaks truth. I was lucky to grow up in the 60s, and we started early, and often. Not a fan of prescribing BCP to teens, but ya gotta do something.
Anyway, sorry about the sidetrack to abortion. Health care is the bigger topic, and appears the republicans are doing the deal exactly wrong too. Now, there is some kind of press to do something before COB on Friday. Just what we need, a rush on major legislation so the 'crats can say they've done something. Bad legislation is better than no legislation. Only in the US.
-
Like cats and dogs, screw away, then murder the result.
-
Like cats and dogs, screw away, then murder the result.
The problem is their are very inexpensive means of contraception. BCP's are readily available inexpensively or even free, as are condoms. I guess they are just too lazy to use them. ::)
-
You two may not be aware that teen sexual activity and pregnancy/birth rates are on a long-term decline. In fact, the pregnancy/birth rate is on more than a two decade decline.
Modern, progressive sex ed, with focus on contraception and access thereof, works. What doesn't work anywhere near as well is no sex ed, or abstinence-only sex ed (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/05/530922642/in-texas-abstinence-only-programs-may-contribute-to-teen-pregnancies).
And no, Paul, the idea is to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
-
You two may not be aware that teen sexual activity and pregnancy/birth rates are on a long-term decline. In fact, the pregnancy/birth rate is on more than a two decade decline.
Modern, progressive sex ed, with focus on contraception and access thereof, works. What doesn't work anywhere near as well is no sex ed, or abstinence-only sex ed (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/05/530922642/in-texas-abstinence-only-programs-may-contribute-to-teen-pregnancies).
And no, Paul, the idea is to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
kids don't get together anymore, so that's to be expected.
-
You two may not be aware that teen sexual activity and pregnancy/birth rates are on a long-term decline. In fact, the pregnancy/birth rate is on more than a two decade decline.
Modern, progressive sex ed, with focus on contraception and access thereof, works. What doesn't work anywhere near as well is no sex ed, or abstinence-only sex ed (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/05/530922642/in-texas-abstinence-only-programs-may-contribute-to-teen-pregnancies).
And no, Paul, the idea is to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
Actually, males have been so drugged, feminized and weakened that they just aren't able to get it up as much any more.
-
Actually, males have been so drugged, feminized and weakened that they just aren't able to get it up as much any more.
Speak for yourself. ;)
-
Actually, males have been so drugged, feminized and weakened that they just aren't able to get it up as much any more.
That probably explains a lower birthrate among teens than anything else.
-
That probably explains a lower birthrate among teens than anything else.
Ya'll are so confused. Ya'll want to teach abstinence, but also want your teen boys to be manly dudes who can keep it up for the chicks. Make up your minds! :D
PS - The data points to increased and better contraceptive use as a significant driver of teen pregnancy reductions. But social factors may play a hand in declining teen sexual proclivity (which includes a delay in sexual debut).
-
Interesting insight into the PPH money and health services for women.
https://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/08/19/maternal-mortality-rates-in-texas-doubled-after-state-cut-funding-to-planned-parenthood/
There appears to be a relationship between low income births, and maternal mortality when PPH services are cut. So, I can certainly see the social implications of PPH funding cuts, but really - is this a function that the govt should be involved in? I don't have the answers, but this is part of the social cost of defunding a current program.
-
All I know, at this point in time, is that we are fucked. Government got its mitts on healthcare via the ACA and screwed it up badly and we can not expect it to get better from here on out. The end result, at some point, will be single payer with the Government picking the winners and losers.
-
Interesting insight into the PPH money and health services for women.
https://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/08/19/maternal-mortality-rates-in-texas-doubled-after-state-cut-funding-to-planned-parenthood/
There appears to be a relationship between low income births, and maternal mortality when PPH services are cut. So, I can certainly see the social implications of PPH funding cuts, but really - is this a function that the govt should be involved in? I don't have the answers, but this is part of the social cost of defunding a current program.
There is also a link between mortality and heroin withdrawal. By liberal al logic we should make sure all addicts can get their heroin.
-
will be single payer with the Government picking the winners and losers.
FTFY.
Don't get defeatist. The problem is that Obamacare is so bad and going to get worse. I suspect we will soon be seeing people filing bankruptcy over being able to afford neither the insurance cost nor the fines for not buying the insurance. Yet, the ACA does not contain the steps to move to single payer. So Congress is going to have to put that together and right now they can't agree on the color of the sky because they're all so damned sure of their own perfection.
One thing I know for certain is that if Republicans do not repeal the ACA, they are done as a political party. They might be done anyway, which would be really bad news for the country because we have all seen what comes of Democrat rule.
-
FTFY.
Don't get defeatist. The problem is that Obamacare is so bad and going to get worse. I suspect we will soon be seeing people filing bankruptcy over being able to afford neither the insurance cost nor the fines for not buying the insurance. Yet, the ACA does not contain the steps to move to single payer. So Congress is going to have to put that together and right now they can't agree on the color of the sky because they're all so damned sure of their own perfection.
One thing I know for certain is that if Republicans do not repeal the ACA, they are done as a political party. They might be done anyway, which would be really bad news for the country because we have all seen what comes of Democrat rule.
They need 60 votes to repeal it, not going to happen.