Health Care - we gotta fix this shit...

[healthmyths]

I'm a conservative.
But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
Doctors and hospitals are performing unneeded procedures and prescribing unneeded drugs for profit.
I'm all about profit - but not profit over deceit.
And not profit over the well-being of American citizens.
I always thought the federal government was fundamental for our national defense, and national defense only.
Not any more.
Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Both systems are abused and bankrupt.
Have a single payer system. Tack on 5% on our paychecks and have the government have oversight.
Everybody has health care.
I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.

Wow. That’s very leftist of you.

As a naturalized American from Canada, I will tell you this - the American system is better for upper middle class people and higher, the Canadian system is better for lower middle class and lower.

And I have NO problem with Canada single payer with a population of 36.7 million of which 83.8% are Caucasian...
Versus the USA...327.7 million... nearly 9 times!
But see this is where the ONE size fits all concept of single payer breaks down!
Canada with less then 1/9th the population can manage it and with 10 providences versus 50 states?
So why not get YOUR state to have single payer health insurance and let me in my state make up whether I want single payer?
I don't understand that this "one size fits all" mentality because people in Florida hardly freeze to death versus Minnesota!!
And people in Texas probably have a different health issues than Iowa.

So why this need for "one size fits all"? Comparing a country with less than 1/9th the population as a model? Get real!

Canada’s system has its problems, no doubt about it. I think the US system is better, especially as an upper income earner. But after being in both systems, if I were lower middle class, I’d move back to Canada.

FYI in Canada, the system is run by the provinces, not the Federal government. The Federal government sets the standards and provides funding, but the provinces run the program.

But the size doesn’t really matter. Germany and Japan are large nations with single payer systems.

Size DOES matter!
Population of Japan..126.8 million 1/3 of the USA! And of that 98.5% contribution from ethnic Japanese people.
Population of Germany: 82.8 million 1/4 the size of the USA. German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1% (made up largely of Polish, Italian, Romanian, Syrian, and Greek)

Again... why is it you want to compare a almost homogenous population like Germany/Japan! Of course it's easier to handle health care in that situation.
But again... idiots like you don't know a shitting thing about health insurance, states' insurance regulators, medical liability ratios, and yet you complain and think
single payer is the answer!
Do idiots like you know that less than 1.5% of the American population do not have health insurance that WANT it??? 3%!
FACTS do the math!
less than 5 million truly want and need insurance out of a population of 327 million!
But you idiots don't want to deal in the FACTS. There never were 46 million uninsured Americans! Period!
And you idiots keep believing this same MSM that touts 500 million straws consumed per day from a 9 year old KID who called SOME manufacturers who told him how many they MADE! But even the National Park Service and dozens of MSM repeated that figure.
The point is why can't idiots like you do some simple Google searches as I did and put into the ATTACHED!
Why even the architect of ACA who said it took the stupidity of Americans to pass ACA AGREED! nearly 10 million of those that signed up for ACA were already eligible BEFORE
ACA for Medicaid. Again read the attached and start thinking for yourself and not depending on the dumb ass biased MSM!

 

[Howard Roark]

No thank you.

The first biggest problem we have is government interference in the health care markets. It's not a coinkydink that health care inflation has sky rocketed as government's share has increased.

The second biggest problem is that consumers are shielded from prices due to routine and maintenance care being co-mingled with catastrophic insurance. Routine and maintenance care end up being overpriced prepaid services masking as insurance. I'm convinced that without the insurance overhead and cost plus distorted incentives for the insurance middleman - supplier duopoly, that what we currently pay as co-pays would be what routine appointments and prescriptions would cost without insurance.

So - we should break up the insurance bundles. Consumers should be free to choose catastrophic care only and to self-fund routine care or subscribe to a concierge service...or other models as the market is free to experiment.

One size fits all is one size fits none.

The only problem with your a la carte proposal is that the majority would not be able to afford insurance that actually covers anything. Which includes most women. Cost sharing is the only way any insurance works. It's certainly not a new concept.

If you want to go back to having people fired because they skew the insurance pool numbers for the business they worked for, that's your choice.

Most don't.

 

[Howard Roark]

I don't get it. They've finally figured out that employer provided health care is a bad idea. It's made us virtual slaves to our employers, dependent on them for our very health. And the only fix they can come up with is to shift the dependency to government.

True. And it accounts for many people really not understanding the issue of healthcare in this country. The govt. now pays for the lion's share of healthcare, so I'm not sure what's being 'shifted'?

 

[Toro]

I'm a conservative.
But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
Doctors and hospitals are performing unneeded procedures and prescribing unneeded drugs for profit.
I'm all about profit - but not profit over deceit.
And not profit over the well-being of American citizens.
I always thought the federal government was fundamental for our national defense, and national defense only.
Not any more.
Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Both systems are abused and bankrupt.
Have a single payer system. Tack on 5% on our paychecks and have the government have oversight.
Everybody has health care.
I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.

Wow. That’s very leftist of you.

As a naturalized American from Canada, I will tell you this - the American system is better for upper middle class people and higher, the Canadian system is better for lower middle class and lower.

And I have NO problem with Canada single payer with a population of 36.7 million of which 83.8% are Caucasian...
Versus the USA...327.7 million... nearly 9 times!
But see this is where the ONE size fits all concept of single payer breaks down!
Canada with less then 1/9th the population can manage it and with 10 providences versus 50 states?
So why not get YOUR state to have single payer health insurance and let me in my state make up whether I want single payer?
I don't understand that this "one size fits all" mentality because people in Florida hardly freeze to death versus Minnesota!!
And people in Texas probably have a different health issues than Iowa.

So why this need for "one size fits all"? Comparing a country with less than 1/9th the population as a model? Get real!

Canada’s system has its problems, no doubt about it. I think the US system is better, especially as an upper income earner. But after being in both systems, if I were lower middle class, I’d move back to Canada.

FYI in Canada, the system is run by the provinces, not the Federal government. The Federal government sets the standards and provides funding, but the provinces run the program.

But the size doesn’t really matter. Germany and Japan are large nations with single payer systems.

Size DOES matter!
Population of Japan..126.8 million 1/3 of the USA! And of that 98.5% contribution from ethnic Japanese people.
Population of Germany: 82.8 million 1/4 the size of the USA. German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1% (made up largely of Polish, Italian, Romanian, Syrian, and Greek)

Again... why is it you want to compare a almost homogenous population like Germany/Japan! Of course it's easier to handle health care in that situation.
But again... idiots like you don't know a shitting thing about health insurance, states' insurance regulators, medical liability ratios, and yet you complain and think
single payer is the answer!
Do idiots like you know that less than 1.5% of the American population do not have health insurance that WANT it??? 3%!
FACTS do the math!
less than 5 million truly want and need insurance out of a population of 327 million!
But you idiots don't want to deal in the FACTS. There never were 46 million uninsured Americans! Period!
And you idiots keep believing this same MSM that touts 500 million straws consumed per day from a 9 year old KID who called SOME manufacturers who told him how many they MADE! But even the National Park Service and dozens of MSM repeated that figure.
The point is why can't idiots like you do some simple Google searches as I did and put into the ATTACHED!
Why even the architect of ACA who said it took the stupidity of Americans to pass ACA AGREED! nearly 10 million of those that signed up for ACA were already eligible BEFORE
ACA for Medicaid. Again read the attached and start thinking for yourself and not depending on the dumb ass biased MSM!

I’m sorry. I mistook you for someone who wanted a serious conversation, not some ranting racist. I won’t make that mistake again.

 

[boedicca]

No thank you.

The first biggest problem we have is government interference in the health care markets. It's not a coinkydink that health care inflation has sky rocketed as government's share has increased.

The second biggest problem is that consumers are shielded from prices due to routine and maintenance care being co-mingled with catastrophic insurance. Routine and maintenance care end up being overpriced prepaid services masking as insurance. I'm convinced that without the insurance overhead and cost plus distorted incentives for the insurance middleman - supplier duopoly, that what we currently pay as co-pays would be what routine appointments and prescriptions would cost without insurance.

So - we should break up the insurance bundles. Consumers should be free to choose catastrophic care only and to self-fund routine care or subscribe to a concierge service...or other models as the market is free to experiment.

One size fits all is one size fits none.

The only problem with your a la carte proposal is that the majority would not be able to afford insurance that actually covers anything. Which includes most women. Cost sharing is the only way any insurance works. It's certainly not a new concept.

If you want to go back to having people fired because they skew the insurance pool numbers for the business they worked for, that's your choice.

Most don't.

Your strawman is burning.

The one size fits all Obabblecare with high premiums, huge deductibles and high co-pays with limited doctor availability isn't making health care affordable. It is just taxing people who do not have employer provided insurance in order to subsidize free loaders.

(And your screen name is incredibly inappropriate for someone with your ideology.)

 

[dblack]

I don't get it. They've finally figured out that employer provided health care is a bad idea. It's made us virtual slaves to our employers, dependent on them for our very health. And the only fix they can come up with is to shift the dependency to government.

True. And it accounts for many people really not understanding the issue of healthcare in this country. The govt. now pays for the lion's share of healthcare, so I'm not sure what's being 'shifted'?

Does that matter? I mean, if it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea and we should be heading the other direction. If you think it's a good idea, make that argument. Justifying more crappy policy with existing crappy policy isn't compelling.

 

[dblack]

The only problem with your a la carte proposal is that the majority would not be able to afford insurance that actually covers anything. Which includes most women. Cost sharing is the only way any insurance works. It's certainly not a new concept.

It's not new, but it's not insurance, and it would make for more clarity if we stopped calling it that. Real insurance isn't "cost-sharing". It's not a club you join to score subsidized health care. What we call group health insurance is simply someone else assuming responsibility for your health care expenses. Usually an employer. It's not viable, and now that it's all crumbling down, people want to double down on a bad idea and make the government the principle provider of health care.

If you want to go back to having people fired because they skew the insurance pool numbers for the business they worked for, that's your choice.

And what will happen to the people who skew the insurance numbers when government takes over? Pretty much any unpopular group who poses a health care risk will be a target for regulation. Fatties, gays, smokers, you name it. Every election cycle populists will scapegoat some reviled group - because, hey, that shit works.

I wish you people would think this through. Why do you want Donald Trump in charge of your health care?

 

[Redfish]

My coverage in retirement is fantastic, and since I paid for those before me, I want my cut.

I am almost 50, I will never see a penny from any socialist entitlement programs I have paid in all my adult life... I want to cut bait and get the fuck out of that shit I don’t want to pay anymore into the shit...

You are being alarmist.

If you retire at 65, you will receive benefits from the socialist entitlement programs Americans love so much.

social security and medicare are not entitlements, we paid for them with our money our entire working lives. Money that was taken out of our paychecks without our permission. Its ours. The government owes it to us. Its not welfare or charity or entitlement its the return of forced savings (taxes)

Entitlements are anything you get from the government.

not in today's jargon. entitlements are things you get from the government without paying anything in to the government for them.

social security and medicare have been paid for by working americans who get some of it back in retirement. If they live long enough they can get back more than they paid in, but many die before collecting any of their money back. Food stamps and welfare are entitlements.

 

[Redfish]

I'm a conservative.
But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
Doctors and hospitals are performing unneeded procedures and prescribing unneeded drugs for profit.
I'm all about profit - but not profit over deceit.
And not profit over the well-being of American citizens.
I always thought the federal government was fundamental for our national defense, and national defense only.
Not any more.
Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Both systems are abused and bankrupt.
Have a single payer system. Tack on 5% on our paychecks and have the government have oversight.
Everybody has health care.
I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.

No thank you.

The first biggest problem we have is government interference in the health care markets. It's not a coinkydink that health care inflation has sky rocketed as government's share has increased.

The second biggest problem is that consumers are shielded from prices due to routine and maintenance care being co-mingled with catastrophic insurance. Routine and maintenance care end up being overpriced prepaid services masking as insurance. I'm convinced that without the insurance overhead and cost plus distorted incentives for the insurance middleman - supplier duopology, that what we currently pay as co-pays would be what routine appointments and prescriptions would cost without insurance.

So - we should break up the insurance bundles. Consumers should be free to choose catastrophic care only and to self-fund routine care or subscribe to a concierge service...or other models as the market is free to experiment.

One size fits all is one size fits none.

I don't get it. They've finally figured out that employer provided health care is a bad idea. It's made us virtual slaves to our employers, dependent on them for our very health. And the only fix they can come up with is to shift the dependency to government.

true, the one difference being that employers were covering a major portion of the cost whereas under ACA the taxpayers are covering 100% of it

 

[Redfish]

medicare for all would be the VA for all. Careful what you ask for, you might get it. Ask any Brit or Canadian how they like their "free" medical care. Ask them how they like waiting 6 months for a routine procedure. Ask them why they come to the US for treatment if they have a serious illness.

your naivety is amazing.

Most Canadians would rather have the Canadian system than the American system, flaws and all.

Conservatives would rather stay out of the collective... their participation is not necessary.

Perhaps, but that’s irrelevant to what Redfish said about Canadians. Most Canadians would rather have Canada’s system than America’s.

but they come to the USA for serious conditions. That says quite a lot.

Yes. Very true.

But more Americans go abroad proportionally for medical treatment because of cost than Canadians go to the US because of rationing

got any proof of that?

 

[Anathema]

I'm a conservative.
But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.... Everybody has health care.
I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.

Those are not the thoughts or words of a Conservative; therefore they have no value to a real Conservative such as myself. Have a nice day.

 

[Howard Roark]

Your strawman is burning.

The one size fits all Obabblecare with high premiums, huge deductibles and high co-pays with limited doctor availability isn't making health care affordable. It is just taxing people who do not have employer provided insurance in order to subsidize free loaders.

(And your screen name is incredibly inappropriate for someone with your ideology.)

ACA was never allowed to function as designed, so your incorrect generalizations are baseless.

Howard Roark was an ultra competent architect who was frustrated by the incompetence he encountered in his field, and in society.

My screen name fits just fine, thanks.

 

[Howard Roark]

Does that matter? I mean, if it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea and we should be heading the other direction. If you think it's a good idea, make that argument. Justifying more crappy policy with existing crappy policy isn't compelling.

You make it sound as if healthcare is the only bad idea that our legislators have thrust upon us throughout history. Granted, this thread addresses healthcare only, but the problem is systemic in this country.

If you think that corporations are going to willingly give up the wage crushing, tax avoidance scheme of providing health insurance in lieu of living wages, you're in for a surprise.

 

[boedicca]

Your strawman is burning.

The one size fits all Obabblecare with high premiums, huge deductibles and high co-pays with limited doctor availability isn't making health care affordable. It is just taxing people who do not have employer provided insurance in order to subsidize free loaders.

(And your screen name is incredibly inappropriate for someone with your ideology.)

ACA was never allowed to function as designed, so your incorrect generalizations are baseless.

Howard Roark was an ultra competent architect who was frustrated by the incompetence he encountered in his field, and in society.

My screen name fits just fine, thanks.

B'loney. ACA is working just as intended - to destroy the private insurance market to pave the way for single-payer nationalized "health care". Insurance is not health care, although you gullible dupes often confuse the two.

And Howard Roark would never support government programs as the answer to a problem resulting from government interference in free markets.

 

[Howard Roark]

It's not new, but it's not insurance, and it would make for more clarity if we stopped calling it that. Real insurance isn't "cost-sharing". It's not a club you join to score subsidized health care. What we call group health insurance is simply someone else assuming responsibility for your health care expenses. Usually an employer. It's not viable, and now that it's all crumbling down, people want to double down on a bad idea and make the government the principle provider of health care.

I don't know of any type of insurance that doesn't rely on cost sharing. It's simply not feasible any other way. Odd how Conservative men rail against paying for maternity care, but have no problem with everyone paying for their boner pills? (NOTE....V iagra is a banned word here? LMAO)

Nobody takes the picture as a whole. They just cherry pick issues that they don't like, and believe that laser focus on the minutia will make for intelligent debate.
Employers are not assuming responsibility for health care expenses. The taxpayers are.

And what will happen to the people who skew the insurance numbers when government takes over? Pretty much any unpopular group who poses a health care risk will be a target for regulation. Fatties, gays, smokers, you name it. Every election cycle populists will scapegoat some reviled group - because, hey, that shit works.

I wish you people would think this through. Why do you want Donald Trump in charge of your health care?

I wish you would stop posting to everyone as 'you people', as if everyone agrees/disagrees with your positions in toto. The govt. isn't taking over insurance. It could be argued that some sort of single payer is the ultimate cost sharing device.

A device that allows all insurance to exist.

 

[Howard Roark]

B'loney. ACA is working just as intended - to destroy the private insurance market to pave the way for single-payer nationalized "health care". Insurance is not health care, although you gullible dupes often confuse the two.

And Howard Roark would never support government programs as the answer to a problem resulting from government interference in free markets.

Your silly generalizations don't belong in a thread that begs intelligent debate. ACA was actually a massive handout to insurance companies, in exchange for a wide variety of coverage that didn't previously exist. The funding was removed by House Republicans for political purposes, and we are left with the shell of ACA that now exists as a punching bag for people like yourself...the uninformed.

There was no concept of large scale health insurance when Howard Roark roamed the halls of fictional characters, so I'm a bit amused by your problems with my positions.

 

[boedicca]

B'loney. ACA is working just as intended - to destroy the private insurance market to pave the way for single-payer nationalized "health care". Insurance is not health care, although you gullible dupes often confuse the two.

And Howard Roark would never support government programs as the answer to a problem resulting from government interference in free markets.

Your silly generalizations don't belong in a thread that begs intelligent debate. ACA was actually a massive handout to insurance companies, in exchange for a wide variety of coverage that didn't previously exist. The funding was removed by House Republicans for political purposes, and we are left with the shell of ACA that now exists as a punching bag for people like yourself...the uninformed.

There was no concept of large scale health insurance when Howard Roark roamed the halls of fictional characters, so I'm a bit amused by your problems with my positions.

Your silly misunderstanding of Howard Roark, The Fountainhead, Objectivism and Ayn Rand pins the bogometer. The ideological underpinnings remain the same. Centralized planning and forcing people to support others at the point of a gun are not consistent with Howard Roark by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Anathema]

As a Conservative, I will DIE before I take Government Health Care of ANY type. I got my wife off Medicare when we got married. We’re not going back to it.

 

[dblack]

It's not new, but it's not insurance, and it would make for more clarity if we stopped calling it that. Real insurance isn't "cost-sharing". It's not a club you join to score subsidized health care. What we call group health insurance is simply someone else assuming responsibility for your health care expenses. Usually an employer. It's not viable, and now that it's all crumbling down, people want to double down on a bad idea and make the government the principle provider of health care.

I don't know of any type of insurance that doesn't rely on cost sharing.

So what? You're equivocating the cost-sharing that insurance companies do to balance their books with the purpose of insurance. They are very different. The point of real insurance, the reason people buy policies, isn't cost sharing. It's a hedge against risk.

Do you understand that? Do you understand how attempting to use insurance as a cost-sharing club isn't viable? Can you imagine what would happen in other markets if we tried the same nonsense? How would financing your grocery expenses work on the group-cost-sharing model? How would that impact prices?

And what will happen to the people who skew the insurance numbers when government takes over? Pretty much any unpopular group who poses a health care risk will be a target for regulation. Fatties, gays, smokers, you name it. Every election cycle populists will scapegoat some reviled group - because, hey, that shit works.

I wish you people would think this through. Why do you want Donald Trump in charge of your health care?

I wish you would stop posting to everyone as 'you people', as if everyone agrees/disagrees with your positions in toto.

Ok, no problem. Can you answer the questions posed?

 

[Howard Roark]

Your silly misunderstanding of Howard Roark, The Fountainhead, Objectivism and Ayn Rand pins the bogometer. The ideological underpinnings remain the same. Centralized planning and forcing people to support others at the point of a gun are not consistent with Howard Roark by any stretch of the imagination.

Your silly misunderstanding that Rand was a fantastic author, but horrible candidate for social commentary, is very common among Right Wing extremists.

I think you'd have to understand her biography before you delve into the deeper discussions. Emigrating from a heinous regime in communist Soviet Union skews her views about how a society should exist.

In her fantasies, isolationism is fine. Your error is discerning fantasy from reality.