Health Care - we gotta fix this shit...

[LaDexter]

To fix health care, we must push government out and bring back MARKET FORCES to reduce prices...

When we allowed the government to SOCIALIZE SENIOR DRUGS, they sold us out by paying the drug makers a retail price and everyone who voted to sell us out got tons of drug company $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to do so....


The more government is involved with health care, the more health care will resemble the public schools

 

[dblack]

But you admit there are nescessities where it’s ok to get you to pay for other people’s shit, like military for example.

So liberals (and SmokeALib) are saying that healthcare is a necessity. Doesn’t seem too unreasonable, does it?

It's not unreasonable as a proposition. But expecting to enact it with a simple majority vote in Congress is unreasonable. Such radical change to society requires real consensus, it requires more than slim majority support. It requires amending the Constitution. If we try to force such a change without that consensus, we'll just create more problems than we solve.

I agree a large majority coming together to create a stable health care system covering all would be immensely helpful, but doing it by a slim parliamentary majority is not in itself unreasonable. A Constitutional Amendment is certainly not a requirement, as the Constitution isn't supposed to mandate policy aims.

Nationalizing health care is not a mere 'policy aim'. It would represent a radical expansion to the power of the federal government. It's exactly the kind of thing the Constitution is supposed constrain. We can't afford to make such a change without real consensus. That's what the process of amending the Constitution is all about. It ensures everyone is ok with fundamentally altering the powers of the federal government.

All told, the ACA didn't suffer because there was something wrong with it, but because there was a mouth-breathing propaganda campaign to frighten the rubes aiming at destroying the legislation. Now that this "consensus" is growing ...

It suffered because it was foisted on the nation without consensus. I don't know whether support is "growing" or not, but it's still not there. At best it has slim majority support (though even that is debatable). And that's simply not enough. Pushing such fundamental change on the nation when half us don't want it isn't viable. It only invites reprisal and repeal, and turns a critical function of society into a political football.

 

[Olde Europe]

Nationalizing health care is not a mere 'policy aim'. It would represent a radical expansion to the power of the federal government. It's exactly the kind of thing the Constitution is supposed constrain. We can't afford to make such a change without real consensus. That's what the process of amending the Constitution is all about. It ensures everyone is ok with fundamentally altering the powers of the federal government.

I think you are vastly, vastly overstating your case.

Offering a public option, negotiating drug and provider prices from the position of a large-scale customer, in effect, Medicare for all, would be a decent option resulting in nothing one could describe as "a radical expansion to the power of the federal government". It plainly isn't.

Moreover, your assessment of "amending the Constitution" as the path toward ensuring "everyone is ok with" whatever the Amendment says, is faulty, as a cursory research into the ongoing acrimony about the post Civil War Amendments should tell you in next to no time. It isn't, and it won't be. Waiting for an amended Constitution does, however, guarantee that nothing whatsoever will get done for at least a generation. All the while people are suffering and dying from lack of coverage.

 

[dblack]

Waiting for an amended Constitution does, however, guarantee that nothing whatsoever will get done for at least a generation. All the while people are suffering and dying from lack of coverage.

That's just lazy, and it will cost us. Trying to push through such significant change without doing the work of building genuine consensus will undermine our politics even further. Every election will be a rehash of the debate, with all the fear-mongering and bitter divisiveness turned up to eleven.

 

[Olde Europe]

Waiting for an amended Constitution does, however, guarantee that nothing whatsoever will get done for at least a generation. All the while people are suffering and dying from lack of coverage.

That's just lazy, and it will cost us. Trying to push through such significant change without doing the work of building genuine consensus will undermine our politics even further. Every election will be a rehash of the debate, with all the fear-mongering and bitter divisiveness turned up to eleven.

Yes, change comes at a cost, not least because the forces profiting from the status quo, and aligned against change, will cause a ruckus. That same thing applies to Constitutional change. Democracy is messy, and overcoming fundamentalist opposition, as a GOP-gone-bonkers represents, is messier still.

However, no change also comes at a cost, and I don't see you take it into account.

I, for one, take a lively, if messy, democracy aiming for fairness, and occasionally succeeding, over stalled development while waiting for a consensus that is, and will likely remain, out of reach for many, many years.

I guess, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, eh?

 

[RealDave]

Outlaw health insurance and repeal medicare (pharma and provider windfall meal tickets). Problem solved.

Wow, your ignorance has no bounds. Make healthcare available for only the wealthy.

 

[dblack]

However, no change also comes at a cost, and I don't see you take it into account.

Exactly. That's why we need to pursue more modest changes that can garner solid support, and stop grandstanding for radical change that will only be ripped out with the next administration. That kind of thrashing hurts more than it helps.

 

[AntonToo]

But you admit there are nescessities where it’s ok to get you to pay for other people’s shit, like military for example.

So liberals (and SmokeALib) are saying that healthcare is a necessity. Doesn’t seem too unreasonable, does it?

It's not unreasonable as a proposition. But expecting to enact it with a simple majority vote in Congress is unreasonable. Such radical change to society requires real consensus, it requires more than slim majority support. It requires amending the Constitution. If we try to force such a change without that consensus, we'll just create more problems than we solve.

I agree a large majority coming together to create a stable health care system covering all would be immensely helpful, but doing it by a slim parliamentary majority is not in itself unreasonable. A Constitutional Amendment is certainly not a requirement, as the Constitution isn't supposed to mandate policy aims. All told, the ACA didn't suffer because there was something wrong with it, but because there was a mouth-breathing propaganda campaign to frighten the rubes aiming at destroying the legislation. Now that this "consensus" is growing, the Goobers find it hard to repeal the law. Yes, progress is obviously not a straight line, and it's even more difficult since the ACA had to deal with, and tried to preserve, a deeply dysfunctional health care system to begin with.

So, yes, it's hard, but in the end there won't be strike through the Gordian Knot any time soon, and all there is is the arc of history bending toward justice, toward the reasonable, and the hard work of moving that darned boulder up the hill to get it done.

wrong ACA failed because it was based on taxing the shit out of young people to pay for medicine for old people.

IMHO the only real fix is to go back to what we had 50 years, you paid your doctor out of your pocket for routine treatment and most prescriptions cost less than $10. Insurance only kicked in if you were hospitalized. We did not expect insurance, or medicare, or Medicaid to pay for routine stuff, and the poor got treatment at the ER or a free clinic. It worked for generations.

Lol

Do you not understand that insurance policy that simply covers routine treatments and sub-$10 prescriptions would cost alsmot nothing and be USEFUL TO NO ONE?

 

[dblack]

IMHO the only real fix is to go back to what we had 50 years, you paid your doctor out of your pocket for routine treatment and most prescriptions cost less than $10. Insurance only kicked in if you were hospitalized. We did not expect insurance, or medicare, or Medicaid to pay for routine stuff, and the poor got treatment at the ER or a free clinic. It worked for generations.

Do you not understand that insurance policy that simply covers routine treatments and sub-$10 prescriptions would cost alsmot nothing and be USEFUL TO NO ONE?

I think you misunderstood the post. Redfish is saying that those things should be paid for out-of-pocket, and not via insurance. Insurance should only be for unforeseen calamities, not routine expenses.

 

[Redfish]

But you admit there are nescessities where it’s ok to get you to pay for other people’s shit, like military for example.

So liberals (and SmokeALib) are saying that healthcare is a necessity. Doesn’t seem too unreasonable, does it?

It's not unreasonable as a proposition. But expecting to enact it with a simple majority vote in Congress is unreasonable. Such radical change to society requires real consensus, it requires more than slim majority support. It requires amending the Constitution. If we try to force such a change without that consensus, we'll just create more problems than we solve.

I agree a large majority coming together to create a stable health care system covering all would be immensely helpful, but doing it by a slim parliamentary majority is not in itself unreasonable. A Constitutional Amendment is certainly not a requirement, as the Constitution isn't supposed to mandate policy aims. All told, the ACA didn't suffer because there was something wrong with it, but because there was a mouth-breathing propaganda campaign to frighten the rubes aiming at destroying the legislation. Now that this "consensus" is growing, the Goobers find it hard to repeal the law. Yes, progress is obviously not a straight line, and it's even more difficult since the ACA had to deal with, and tried to preserve, a deeply dysfunctional health care system to begin with.

So, yes, it's hard, but in the end there won't be strike through the Gordian Knot any time soon, and all there is is the arc of history bending toward justice, toward the reasonable, and the hard work of moving that darned boulder up the hill to get it done.

wrong ACA failed because it was based on taxing the shit out of young people to pay for medicine for old people.

IMHO the only real fix is to go back to what we had 50 years, you paid your doctor out of your pocket for routine treatment and most prescriptions cost less than $10. Insurance only kicked in if you were hospitalized. We did not expect insurance, or medicare, or Medicaid to pay for routine stuff, and the poor got treatment at the ER or a free clinic. It worked for generations.

Lol

Do you not understand that insurance policy that simply covers routine treatments and sub-$10 prescriptions would cost alsmot nothing and be USEFUL TO NO ONE?

actually that is exactly what obozocare was trying to do, except that there are no prescriptions under $10.

I understand that you are mentally challenged but you kind of made my point. when insurance did not cover routine visits and cheap prescription, the premiums were small, and it only paid when you had a major illness requiring hospitalization. Now, we want insurance to cover everything. That, my little friend, is the problem. there aint no free lunch.

 

[Redfish]

Nationalizing health care is not a mere 'policy aim'. It would represent a radical expansion to the power of the federal government. It's exactly the kind of thing the Constitution is supposed constrain. We can't afford to make such a change without real consensus. That's what the process of amending the Constitution is all about. It ensures everyone is ok with fundamentally altering the powers of the federal government.

I think you are vastly, vastly overstating your case.

Offering a public option, negotiating drug and provider prices from the position of a large-scale customer, in effect, Medicare for all, would be a decent option resulting in nothing one could describe as "a radical expansion to the power of the federal government". It plainly isn't.

Moreover, your assessment of "amending the Constitution" as the path toward ensuring "everyone is ok with" whatever the Amendment says, is faulty, as a cursory research into the ongoing acrimony about the post Civil War Amendments should tell you in next to no time. It isn't, and it won't be. Waiting for an amended Constitution does, however, guarantee that nothing whatsoever will get done for at least a generation. All the while people are suffering and dying from lack of coverage.

if the government "managed" all healthcare for all americans it would be a huge increase of govt power and would require a new huge beauocracy to administer it. Do you really want you medical decisions made by some ignorant GS7 in a basement cubicle in DC?

 

[dblack]

Nationalizing health care is not a mere 'policy aim'. It would represent a radical expansion to the power of the federal government. It's exactly the kind of thing the Constitution is supposed constrain. We can't afford to make such a change without real consensus. That's what the process of amending the Constitution is all about. It ensures everyone is ok with fundamentally altering the powers of the federal government.

I think you are vastly, vastly overstating your case.

Offering a public option, negotiating drug and provider prices from the position of a large-scale customer, in effect, Medicare for all, would be a decent option resulting in nothing one could describe as "a radical expansion to the power of the federal government". It plainly isn't.

Moreover, your assessment of "amending the Constitution" as the path toward ensuring "everyone is ok with" whatever the Amendment says, is faulty, as a cursory research into the ongoing acrimony about the post Civil War Amendments should tell you in next to no time. It isn't, and it won't be. Waiting for an amended Constitution does, however, guarantee that nothing whatsoever will get done for at least a generation. All the while people are suffering and dying from lack of coverage.

if the government "managed" all healthcare for all americans it would be a huge increase of govt power and would require a new huge beauocracy to administer it. Do you really want you medical decisions made by some ignorant GS7 in a basement cubicle in DC?

The question I have, especially for Democrats, is this: Why do you want Donald Trump (or Congress, or Federal bureaucrats, or any kind of central authority) in control of your health care? Making health care a political concern drags it into the morass of our bitterly divided partisan nonsense. Let's skip that.

 

[Olde Europe]

if the government "managed" all healthcare for all americans it would be a huge increase of govt power and would require a new huge beauocracy to administer it. Do you really want you medical decisions made by some ignorant GS7 in a basement cubicle in DC?

Not at all an expansion of power, Redfish; it would just be Medicare covering more people than they already do. You don't talk about a huge expansion of government power in case Washington buys a new aircraft carrier group, along with the personnel to operate it, do you?

And no, there would not be a huge new bureaucracy; you may wish to compare Medicare's bureaucratic overhead to any insurance corp's.

And yes, some "medical decisions", if you want to call it that, are being made by some bureaucrats. You would rather these decisions be made by someone who has but one aim, that is, to profit from you?

But thanks for relaying the Insurance Corp's propaganda message anyway. Not that we haven't heard it all before, but still...

 

[Redfish]

if the government "managed" all healthcare for all americans it would be a huge increase of govt power and would require a new huge beauocracy to administer it. Do you really want you medical decisions made by some ignorant GS7 in a basement cubicle in DC?

Not at all an expansion of power, Redfish; it would just be Medicare covering more people than they already do. You don't talk about a huge expansion of government power in case Washington buys a new aircraft carrier group, along with the personnel to operate it, do you?

And no, there would not be a huge new bureaucracy; you may wish to compare Medicare's bureaucratic overhead to any insurance corp's.

And yes, some "medical decisions", if you want to call it that, are being made by some bureaucrats. You would rather these decisions be made by someone who has but one aim, that is, to profit from you?

But thanks for relaying the Insurance Corp's propaganda message anyway. Not that we haven't heard it all before, but still...

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.

 

[dblack]

And yes, some "medical decisions", if you want to call it that, are being made by some bureaucrats. You would rather these decisions be made by someone who has but one aim, that is, to profit from you?

I want to make those decisions myself, with my family as my back up. We might choose to enlist an insurance company in that equation, but it's up to us. No one - short of ACA and overreaching regulation - forces us to delegate these decisions to anyone else. We can hire and fire insurance companies whenever we like. But what you're talking forces everyone to submit to the will of whatever idiots happen to be in charge of government at the time. Short of waiting around until the next fucked up election, there's no way to "fire" the government.

But thanks for relaying the Insurance Corp's propaganda message anyway. Not that we haven't heard it all before, but still...

You're the one carrying water for the insurance lobby. Or were you under the impression that they aren't involved in Medicare? You realize that's all piped through private, for-profit, insurance companies, right? They're eager to have everyone forced into their pens, and you're helping them.

 

[Flopper]

The problem is healthcare costs so ridiculous prices... We need to regulate insurers and hospitals big health and big Pharma. And get more competition in the exchanges and I have nothing against National exchanges... However, 75% of those on the exchanges pay less than $100 a month after subsidies. Republicans believe a whole lot of garbage about Obamacare as well as everything else....

Keep Obamacare to yourselves... The rest of us want nothing to do with it

You going to keep parroting the same fucking meme in all your posts?

Truth hurts?

no, the repetetive stupid hurts.

Anyway Obamacare is no longer mandatory, and in fact Obama did not want it to be mandatory when he started Congress changed that.

Just a clarification. The only part of Obamacare that is not mandatory is carrying health insurance. The requirements on the insurance and healthcare providers are the same. Trump administration has weakened the law in some places such as temporary coverage, however the law remains mostly unchanged.

 

[Olde Europe]

And yes, some "medical decisions", if you want to call it that, are being made by some bureaucrats. You would rather these decisions be made by someone who has but one aim, that is, to profit from you?

I want to make those decisions myself, with my family as my back up. We might choose to enlist an insurance company in that equation, but it's up to us. No one - short of ACA and overreaching regulation - forces us to delegate these decisions to anyone else. We can hire and fire insurance companies whenever we like. But what you're talking forces everyone to submit to the will of whatever idiots happen to be in charge of government at the time. Short of waiting around until the next fucked up election, there's no way to "fire" the government.

But thanks for relaying the Insurance Corp's propaganda message anyway. Not that we haven't heard it all before, but still...

You're the one carrying water for the insurance lobby. Or were you under the impression that they aren't involved in Medicare? You realize that's all piped through private, for-profit, insurance companies, right? They're eager to have everyone forced into their pens, and you're helping them.

Oh, for heaven's sake.

Your private insurance corp governs you, and they will not even inform you in which way. Public insurance is subject to public scrutiny. Of course, you can "fire" one public insurance corp, and "hire" another one. Same shit, different name. I will not, to the end of my life, understand the blind trust in private enterprise, all the mountains of evidence to the contrary, not the least of which is that the U.S. private system provides a mediocre product at twice the cost, compared to all other developed nations, and it doesn't even cover everyone. And still, they're screaming, "Keep your filthy hands off my Medicare!"

Okay, that last bit was uncalled-for. Apologies. But still...

 

[dblack]

Your private insurance corp governs you ...

No. They don't. They can't have me arrested if I don't want to buy what they're selling. The government can. That's a profound difference. You can't just pretend it isn't real.

 

[francoHFW]

Guess what, silly doops, ACA is going nowhere. Four more red States voted for Medicaid expansion, and the Democrats one the house and will never pass repeal. So Tinker with it, fix what you want, but give it up. The high cost of premiums when it started was simply recognizing the actual costs of healthcare after the GOP Let It Go Wild for decades. Now premiums are coming down, despite total GOP sabotage. The GOP is a disgrace and never would pass anything to cut profits for their cronies in big house and big Pharma...

 

[Flopper]

And yes, some "medical decisions", if you want to call it that, are being made by some bureaucrats. You would rather these decisions be made by someone who has but one aim, that is, to profit from you?[/quot

And yes, some "medical decisions", if you want to call it that, are being made by some bureaucrats. You would rather these decisions be made by someone who has but one aim, that is, to profit from you?

I want to make those decisions myself, with my family as my back up. We might choose to enlist an insurance company in that equation, but it's up to us. No one - short of ACA and overreaching regulation - forces us to delegate these decisions to anyone else. We can hire and fire insurance companies whenever we like. But what you're talking forces everyone to submit to the will of whatever idiots happen to be in charge of government at the time. Short of waiting around until the next fucked up election, there's no way to "fire" the government.

But thanks for relaying the Insurance Corp's propaganda message anyway. Not that we haven't heard it all before, but still...

You're the one carrying water for the insurance lobby. Or were you under the impression that they aren't involved in Medicare? You realize that's all piped through private, for-profit, insurance companies, right? They're eager to have everyone forced into their pens, and you're helping them.

I want to make those decisions myself, with my family as my back up. We might choose to enlist an insurance company in that equation, but it's up to us. No one - short of ACA and overreaching regulation - forces us to delegate these decisions to anyone else. We can hire and fire insurance companies whenever we like. But what you're talking forces everyone to submit to the will of whatever idiots happen to be in charge of government at the time. Short of waiting around until the next fucked up election, there's no way to "fire" the government.

But thanks for relaying the Insurance Corp's propaganda message anyway. Not that we haven't heard it all before, but still...

You're the one carrying water for the insurance lobby. Or were you under the impression that they aren't involved in Medicare? You realize that's all piped through private, for-profit, insurance companies, right? They're eager to have everyone forced into their pens, and you're helping them.

Some people applaud the lifting of the mandate and others condemn it. However, the results are about 3 million will not be carrying insurance this year raising the percent uninsured from 10.9% to 12.2%. A study of those dropping insurance reveal that over 90% will not be paying for healthcare problems requiring hospitalization and most of the preventive care which is free under Obamacare. When these people become seriously ill, the rest of society will end up paying the bills through increased insurance premiums and healthcare costs.