If Universal Healthcare is a Bad Idea...

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Music is great but not a reliable source of income. I've been a musician all of my life. I was in bands. I taught guitar at my home. I took a job at a music studio teaching, but it was all part-time because everybody and their mother plays an instrument.

I never perused that lottery ticket because I needed a stable income. I needed to know I have a place to work the next morning. I needed to know I have a paycheck coming every other week.

Nothing would make me happier than to pull my Les Paul out of the case and play for a living, but that's unrealistic. Extra money? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But I would not insist the taxpayers fund my dream no matter how unlikely my success would be.

During my prime I was pressured to pursue music. People considered me one of the fastest and best lead guitarists in the Cleveland area. But if it's one thing I learned about music, it's that there is always somebody better than you. So get a job and let music be something on the side.

Yep. Just like the budget director said. Bad lifestyle decisions, so the baby with the hole in the heart should be left to die. You are, in fact Ray, the poster boy for the GOP.

You're damn right I am, and the GOP message is to not start a family until you are financially secure enough to support that family. The liberal poster boy says if you can't even take care of yourself, start a family anyway; government will take care of them if you can't.

That baby should have know better than to be born to such irresponsible parents.

No, the parents should have known better than to be irresponsible enough to have that baby. But since they have anyway, the taxpayers are held hostage to take care of that baby, and since we can't say no, the cycle will continue for generations.

 

[Dragonlady]

Instead of demanding I pay for those who won't, why don't you demand that people take responsibility for their own life?

You're already paying for those who don't.

Those expensive ER visits that people access for "free" because they have nothing else? You're paying for that.

Not necessarily. How those losses are absorbed is entirely situational. But you're right to point out that EMTALA is an unfunded mandate, and when faced with these kinds of mandates, business have to find a way account for the loss. In general, they have to cut jobs, raise prices or go out of business.

In any case, you have to appreciate how this sounds to those us opposed to these mandates in the first place. We hear you saying "Listen, we have to have this new law that violates your rights because of this other law that violates your rights." - it doesn't make a lot of sense. It's drinking to cure a hangover.

Yeah, we're simply not going to max out access, low cost and quality, at least not until medical technology takes a few more steps (which it will). For now, however, I think that expanding the Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system to all solves/mitigates the most problems at one time. It's a reasonable point of equilibrium between Single Payer (where we appear to be heading) and free market competition. And a side benefit is that it takes a massive cost monkey off the backs of American business.

I'm one of the few people here screaming this, I realize that too...
.

i suggested something like that a couple of times. My idea is that if we want to give businesses tax cuts, give those cuts to employers who provide reasonable health insurance to their employees. As far as Medicare goes, allow people with preexisting conditions to join the program for a reasonable monthly cost just like we do with younger people on SS disability. That would reduce the costs to insurance companies and keep the cost of premiums down. Plus I think it's something any Democrat would go along with.

 

[Markle]

A "national health care tax" could solve that problem.

You'll never be able to tax American's that much. There's just not enough money to go around.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

i suggested something like that a couple of times. My idea is that if we want to give businesses tax cuts, give those cuts to employers who provide reasonable health insurance to their employees. As far as Medicare goes, allow people with preexisting conditions to join the program for a reasonable monthly cost just like we do with younger people on SS disability. That would reduce the costs to insurance companies and keep the cost of premiums down. Plus I think it's something any Democrat would go along with.

Medicare is massively in debt. For me it is fantastic. But it carries with it tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

Progressives think the "rich" should pay for all everyone's limitless health care. The trouble is, there just aren't enough rich! Anywhere. So how do you ration who gets a new heart and who ends up as a donor?

If the goal is to have everybody on healthcare while at the same time, avoiding a government takeover, my suggestion is the only reasonable way.

Medicare is underfunded because we haven't seen an employee contribution increase in many years. If anything, our contributions should have doubled by now in the last five years, and should double again in the next three.

Simply put, if we want to keep these programs, we have to fund them. That's all there is to it. And it's not a partisan thing because many Republicans want to keep Medicare and SS in place as do Democrats.

When we are finally taxed to death (which is something Democrats wish to avoid) only then will we agree that we need to get rid of these programs and start something new. It's kind of like the alcoholic that thinks they don't have a problem. You have to hit rock bottom until you realize there really is a problem.

 

[Thinker101]

The whole concept of insurance is fraudulent...

No, it isn't. It is called, risk management. The right wing would know that, if they had more than just repeal.

Any community that pays for things with insurance/socialist entitlement programs is just asking for sky high costs....

Spreading risk lowers costs.

No, any group of people thinking insurance will pay for everything doesn't care about cost…
It's best for people to pay for their own shit...

A "national health care tax" could solve that problem.

Hmmm, a "national health care tax" that half the people (the ones that don't pay taxes) won't be paying for. That penalizes those that do work and pay taxes....hell, that sounds like Obamacare.

 

[Markle]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Please show the quote where anyone has said they wouldn't deserve health insurance because of "bad lifestyle decisions". Or, are you lying?

 

[Markle]

But then your health is in the hands of private companies, is that better?

What can the government do better and more efficiently than private industry?

 

[dblack]

But then your health is in the hands of private companies, is that better?

What can the government do better and more efficiently than private industry?

Anything that requires coercion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's not choice. How can a country of 300 million plus only have two parties to represent all the different politics in the US?

There is no law that says ten parties can't join. It's the choice of the people to have only two parties--not the government.

All you people on the left talk about is how great other countries have it, yet you never leave here to go there. They have socialized medical care, they have gun control, they don't have very wealthy people.....okay, if that's the way you want it, you're in the wrong country.

We are not changing to be like everybody else. The United States of America is different than all other countries. That's what makes this place so special. There is no other USA in the world to go to if you leave here; only one, and we are it.

We have liberties extended to us by the US Constitution. We have our guns and are going to keep them. We have wealthy and are getting more people wealthy every year. We only have one way of electing a President, and that's by the electoral college.

We are not like everybody else and we want to keep it that way.

But, it's not the choice of the people, is it? It's clearly not. The people don't get the choose the system they want, it's just what there is, and they people in charge like the way it is. They play each side off the other side and force people into negative voting, and often negative voting that isn't even fair, like the Presidential election.

It's quite clear that in Germany that this is the case

German federal election, 2009 - Wikipedia

If Germany had FPTP only, the govt would have looked like this

CDU/CSU with 218 seats (72.6%)
SDP with 64 seats (21.3%)
Die Linke with 16 seats (5.3%)
Gruene with 1 seat (0.3%)

There would have been four parties in government. One of which only has one seat. The CDU/CSU would have had such a massive majority that they could have done whatever they liked. No coalition needed.

But this isn't what happened.

The CDU/CSU had 139 seat (38.4%)
The SPD had 146 seats (23.5%)
The FDP had 93 seats (15%)
Die Linke had 76 seats (12.2%)
Die Gruene had 68 seats (10.9%)

Did the people choose for the CDU/CSU to have 72% of the vote? No, they didn't.
In fact they gained 32% of the vote in FPTP but got 72% of the seats. The people didn't choose for the CDU/CSU to get 72% of the seats, the SYSTEM chose for this to happen. The people actually chose for the CDU/CSU to get 33.8% of the seats, they got 38.4% of the seats because certain parties couldn't get past the 5% threshold. In this election the highest party below the threshold got 2%, one got 1.5%.

So, the people were asked to choose in positive voting and they chose one thing, they were asked in negative voting and they chose something different.

10% of people changed their vote from the big parties in negative voting to smaller parties in positive voting.

The US presidential election was massively a negative vote. 10% of votes changing would have had a massive impact on an election which firstly saw the guy with less votes winning, then you realize if Californians have one vote, then those in Wyoming have 3 votes, and those in California make no difference, but those in swing states have all the power, and this is where all the money was spent.

PR would force them to spend money everywhere because people in Colorado could make the difference as much as people in Vermont, or people in Wyoming. Every vote counts.


But hey Ray, you can pull out the greatest argument pulled out of someone's ass "why don't you fucking leave if you don't like it?" I mean, are you fucking serious that you come on to a political forum with such a lame fucking argument? Jeez.

I didn't say the US has to change to be like everyone else. But the US is rotting from the inside. Corruption is rife, every time we talk about a topic it comes down to "you can't do this because no one trusts the govt, it's corrupt" and yet you then defend the corruption.

Maybe 30% or more of healthcare spending goes down to corruption with the politicians take a slice of the pie. Then there's insurance companies costing 7%. And your response to this is to say the politicians are corrupt. My response is to change the system. Your response is "fuck off somewhere else then", so you moan about corruption and then you DEMAND that we keep the fucking corruption.

Are you serious?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Music is great but not a reliable source of income. I've been a musician all of my life. I was in bands. I taught guitar at my home. I took a job at a music studio teaching, but it was all part-time because everybody and their mother plays an instrument.

I never perused that lottery ticket because I needed a stable income. I needed to know I have a place to work the next morning. I needed to know I have a paycheck coming every other week.

Nothing would make me happier than to pull my Les Paul out of the case and play for a living, but that's unrealistic. Extra money? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But I would not insist the taxpayers fund my dream no matter how unlikely my success would be.

During my prime I was pressured to pursue music. People considered me one of the fastest and best lead guitarists in the Cleveland area. But if it's one thing I learned about music, it's that there is always somebody better than you. So get a job and let music be something on the side.

Yep. Just like the budget director said. Bad lifestyle decisions, so the baby with the hole in the heart should be left to die. You are, in fact Ray, the poster boy for the GOP.

You're damn right I am, and the GOP message is to not start a family until you are financially secure enough to support that family. The liberal poster boy says if you can't even take care of yourself, start a family anyway; government will take care of them if you can't.

That baby should have know better than to be born to such irresponsible parents.

No, the parents should have known better than to be irresponsible enough to have that baby. But since they have anyway, the taxpayers are held hostage to take care of that baby, and since we can't say no, the cycle will continue for generations.

Right, so, do you call that "compassionate conservatism"?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's never a good Idea to give the government a say in whether you live or die.

Your loved ones should be who makes that call.

That, to me, is the prime issue in all of this. I don't want the health of my friends and family subjected to politics.

But then your health is in the hands of private companies, is that better?

It's only the hands of private companies if I choose to do business with them. And if I don't like they way they do business, I can tell them to take a hike. You never have that option with government.

Well, yes you do.

A) there's something called VOTING. The problem is that the system is bad, and it leads to negative voting, only two parties and therefore massive corruption and partisan politics stopping anything happening.

B) You can choose private companies, but ALL private insurance companies will follow the same rules. So, If I have a pre-existing condition, which insurance company will insure me for my pre-existing condition?
If I get a condition while with one insurance company, I'm stuck with them for the rest of my life and they can charge whatever they like because I can't go anywhere else.

Insurance in healthcare doesn't really allow you to make your own choices. Because insurance companies are assholes.

 

[Markle]

Music is great but not a reliable source of income. I've been a musician all of my life. I was in bands. I taught guitar at my home. I took a job at a music studio teaching, but it was all part-time because everybody and their mother plays an instrument.

I never perused that lottery ticket because I needed a stable income. I needed to know I have a place to work the next morning. I needed to know I have a paycheck coming every other week.

Nothing would make me happier than to pull my Les Paul out of the case and play for a living, but that's unrealistic. Extra money? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But I would not insist the taxpayers fund my dream no matter how unlikely my success would be.

During my prime I was pressured to pursue music. People considered me one of the fastest and best lead guitarists in the Cleveland area. But if it's one thing I learned about music, it's that there is always somebody better than you. So get a job and let music be something on the side.

I've sometimes wondered about that. What is that something that separates those like all the famous guitar names and those like Darryl Trucks, a female bass player name of Tal Wilkenfeld? Then there is Darryl's uncle Butch Trucks, drummer for the Allman Brothers. How does that happen? Are they all willing to starve longer than most or what makes them so much better? The right place at the right time? I've been to one of Eric Clapton's Guitar Festivals some years back in Chicago. It just seems to be a different stratosphere.

I really admire anyone with such talents. I love a local raunchy blues club. An ugly old concrete block house down a dirt road in a field surrounded by woods. Great musicians, some with a name, others no one but their fans even know.

 

[Spare_change]

Who should go without?

... those who choose do.

You know, like the 22 million identified by the CBO during their analysis of the Senate bill.

 

[dblack]

It's never a good Idea to give the government a say in whether you live or die.

Your loved ones should be who makes that call.

That, to me, is the prime issue in all of this. I don't want the health of my friends and family subjected to politics.

But then your health is in the hands of private companies, is that better?

It's only the hands of private companies if I choose to do business with them. And if I don't like they way they do business, I can tell them to take a hike. You never have that option with government.

Well, yes you do.

A) there's something called VOTING. The problem is that the system is bad, and it leads to negative voting, only two parties and therefore massive corruption and partisan politics stopping anything happening.

It doesn't matter how good the voting system is, you're stuck with whatever the majority prefers. That's not freedom.

B) You can choose private companies, but ALL private insurance companies will follow the same rules.

Yep. The regulatory regime is what fucks things up to begin with.

Insurance in healthcare doesn't really allow you to make your own choices. Because insurance companies are assholes.

I tend to agree. That's why I buy as little insurance as I can get away with. Again, universal health care takes away the freedom to do that, forcing all of us to follow the same 'solution' to our problems, no matter how dumb it is.

 

[Markle]

But then your health is in the hands of private companies, is that better?

What can the government do better and more efficiently than private industry?

Anything that requires coercion.

Point taken. You're the first who has ever had a reasonable answer.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Please show the quote where anyone has said they wouldn't deserve health insurance because of "bad lifestyle decisions". Or, are you lying?

White House Budget Director Excludes Diabetics From Healthcare With 5 SHAMEFUL Words

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's never a good Idea to give the government a say in whether you live or die.

Your loved ones should be who makes that call.

That, to me, is the prime issue in all of this. I don't want the health of my friends and family subjected to politics.

But then your health is in the hands of private companies, is that better?

It's only the hands of private companies if I choose to do business with them. And if I don't like they way they do business, I can tell them to take a hike. You never have that option with government.

Well, yes you do.

A) there's something called VOTING. The problem is that the system is bad, and it leads to negative voting, only two parties and therefore massive corruption and partisan politics stopping anything happening.

It doesn't matter how good the voting system is, you're stuck with whatever the majority prefers. That's not freedom.

B) You can choose private companies, but ALL private insurance companies will follow the same rules.

Yep. The regulatory regime is what fucks things up to begin with.

Insurance in healthcare doesn't really allow you to make your own choices. Because insurance companies are assholes.

I tend to agree. That's why I buy as little insurance as I can get away with. Again, universal health care takes away the freedom to do that, forcing all of us to follow the same 'solution' to our problems, no matter how dumb it is.

Maybe you are stuck with what the majority prefers, or maybe not.

Look. In the US you're stuck with what the system says. Trump was not the Majority, Hillary wasn't the majority either. Neither got 50%.

In France's presidential election they're stuck with what the majority said, as there was a run off election with just the two final candidates. It's a fairer system.

In Germany, there's no presidential election (who is the president of Germany? His name is Who Cares?). The biggest party got 40% of the seats in 2013. That means they needed a coalition. And they ALWAYS have coalitions. So it's not just about what the main party wants, it's about what two main parties want. Which means there is more consensus, more working together. In the US it doesn't happen because they know no matter how much they don't work together, people will still vote for them.

In Germany, they don't work together, people will vote for another viable party.

In France they have insurance, it's not made by private profit companies, it's not-for-profit. Pre-existing conditions don't matter. The Govt pays 70% of the costs, it's expensive, cheaper than the US system, people on the take are much reduced. This is a system that has been made by a government that has to work together on this, and is much less partisan.

Germany has a system comprising (to quote wikipedia Healthcare in Germany - Wikipedia) "a universal[1] multi-payer health care system paid for by a combination of statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) officially called "sickness funds" (Krankenkassen) and private health insurance (Private Krankenversicherung), colloquially also called "(private) sickness funds"."

"Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004."

Basically people pay, it's not cheap, but again cheaper than the US system, and people don't get left behind. It's a compromise of what happens when parties have to work together. Their system works for all people.

Seems the US is one of the few, if only, first world country that doesn't work for the people.

And as I've stated, universal healthcare doesn't take away the choice, it ADDS choice.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have a nephew who's son is a self employed studio musician, so he has no group insurance. He is 22, and married. He has juvenile diabetes, and his wife gave birth to a baby boy with a hole in his heart. According to the GOP budget director, and several posters on this board, he does not deserve insurance for himself, or his son, because they made "bad lifestyle decisions". However, thanks to ACA, he is getting his medication, and the baby had heart surgery. I guess that they should be labeled deadbeats.

Music is great but not a reliable source of income. I've been a musician all of my life. I was in bands. I taught guitar at my home. I took a job at a music studio teaching, but it was all part-time because everybody and their mother plays an instrument.

I never perused that lottery ticket because I needed a stable income. I needed to know I have a place to work the next morning. I needed to know I have a paycheck coming every other week.

Nothing would make me happier than to pull my Les Paul out of the case and play for a living, but that's unrealistic. Extra money? Sure, nothing wrong with that. But I would not insist the taxpayers fund my dream no matter how unlikely my success would be.

During my prime I was pressured to pursue music. People considered me one of the fastest and best lead guitarists in the Cleveland area. But if it's one thing I learned about music, it's that there is always somebody better than you. So get a job and let music be something on the side.

Ray, you are definitely starting to confuse me. You posted that you had some sort of individual health insurance policy that you lost because the company withdrew the policy because it did not meet ACA mandates. This implies that you had no group health insurance. If fact, you have implied that since you lost that great individual health policy, that you have no insurance at all, in spite of the fact that it is available to you through ACA, though you can't afford it.. If that is the case, what is the difference between you and my "irresponsible" nephew's son that you call irresponsible because he had a family before getting health insurance? In fact, who is the most irresponsible, you with no insurance, or my nephew's son, with ACA insurance?

You are losing your credibility, Ray.

 

[Vandalshandle]

 

[frigidweirdo]

That their argument is "you're going to die one day anyway, so you don't need healthcare", shows just how out of touch with reality some people are.