The Future

[bendog]

Thank you, for post #278

A couple of things to consider, in re health care:

• The private sector employees too many people and for it to be eliminated would create a Great Recession;
• Private Insurance will still flourish, but profits will be reduced and premiums lower when procedures and medical equipment are priced with equity;
• Every citizen will have choice, to buy government insurance or private insurance, but those who seek to skip the purchase will still pay a fine (since the law requires they be treated, insured or not);
• Citizens will still need to buy private health insurance for accidents and injuries which can happen at anytime, and would not be provided by Medicare for all.
• IMO Medicare for all would provide preventative care (age appropriate physical exams, vaccines, labs and age appropriate preventative medicines provided at low or no cost, depending on the person or family ability to pay.

--
We differ. I think Medicare and JohnsHopkins et al can set standards for things in bullet 5, as well as the most common procedures like knee/hip replacements, fractures, ligaments, prescriptions, psychological and consumers can make intelligent choices. Consumer choice on a individual basis is often wrong, but on an avg the best products prove out. A system would have to financially reward people for consuming less.

Emergency, chronic disability, and "big" illnesses like cancers, strokes, and severe injury could be covered more or less like SOCIALISM. LOL

Society already pays enough in terms of employer tax breaks and entitlements to cover all of this.

 

[hunarcy]

The goal of ACA is to provide effective health care with is affordable and it failed.

Conservatives opposed it because they knew they were being lied to.

You are one of the liars.

To be clear, I didn't agree with all its premises, but imo the ACA was intended to be a means to universal coverage, and while Roberts re-wrote it, it was a step in that direction and despite Roberts did curtail cost increases … in a socialistic manner. (-:

IMO, the ACA was intended to weaken private insurance to the point where the government could implement single payer.

not if private insurance can be more efficient (econ definition) than medicare

Private insurance obviously was until the ACA changed the rules.

PI payed providers medicare rates. And HC costs stopped rising as fast when the ACA was implemented.

I personally am more in the BLF group, than Medicare for all, but the ultimate goal was to pit PI against Medicare, and see who could provided the same services for a cheaper price.

HC costs just haven't caught up to the increase ACA put on us.

 

[hunarcy]

The goal of the ACA is to screw up the US health care system to the point where the people support federal universal health care.
Democrats, always looking to increase the power of the state and control over the people living in it, fully support this, for obvious reasons.
Why on earth would conservatives oppose this?

The goal of the ACA is to provide effective health care which is affordable and available to all citizens

Conservatives oppose it because, Obama signed it.

• Health care was increasing double digits for 20 years, annually;
• Hard working people were losing everything when a catastrophic injury or disease effected their family and their insurance had limits;
• People with existing conditions could not afford or even obtain health insurance;
• And, conservatives put profit before people.

The goal of ACA is to provide effective health care with is affordable and it failed.

Conservatives opposed it because they knew they were being lied to.

You are one of the liars.

To be clear, I didn't agree with all its premises, but imo the ACA was intended to be a means to universal coverage, and while Roberts re-wrote it, it was a step in that direction and despite Roberts did curtail cost increases … in a socialistic manner. (-:

IMO, the ACA was intended to weaken private insurance to the point where the government could implement single payer.

IMO your Opinion is based on the hate and fear mongering by the Republican's, and the special interests who profiteer.

A couple of things to consider, in re health care:

• The private sector employees too many people and for it to be eliminated would create a Great Recession;
• Private Insurance will still flourish, but profits will be reduced and premiums lower when procedures and medical equipment are priced with equity;
• Every citizen will have choice, to buy government insurance or private insurance, but those who seek to skip the purchase will still pay a fine (since the law requires they be treated, insured or not);
• Citizens will still need to buy private health insurance for accidents and injuries which can happen at anytime, and would not be provided by Medicare for all.
• IMO Medicare for all would provide preventative care (age appropriate physical exams, vaccines, labs and age appropriate preventative medicines provided at low or no cost, depending on the person or family ability to pay.

IMO, your OPINION is based on ignorance because I'm basing my opinion on what is actually happening.

 

[hunarcy]

IMO, the ACA was intended to weaken private insurance to the point where the government could implement single payer.

not if private insurance can be more efficient (econ definition) than medicare

Private insurance obviously was until the ACA changed the rules.

PI payed providers medicare rates. And HC costs stopped rising as fast when the ACA was implemented.

I personally am more in the BLF group, than Medicare for all, but the ultimate goal was to pit PI against Medicare, and see who could provided the same services for a cheaper price.

and the constitution can go to hell,,,right???

This comment ^^^ suggests you have never read the Constitution, and accept the Federalist Society's interpretation that we are still living in the 18th Century.

Where in the Constitution does it advocate taking money from one group of people to pay for the insurance of another group of people?

 

[progressive hunter]

IMO, the ACA was intended to weaken private insurance to the point where the government could implement single payer.

not if private insurance can be more efficient (econ definition) than medicare

Private insurance obviously was until the ACA changed the rules.

PI payed providers medicare rates. And HC costs stopped rising as fast when the ACA was implemented.

I personally am more in the BLF group, than Medicare for all, but the ultimate goal was to pit PI against Medicare, and see who could provided the same services for a cheaper price.

and the constitution can go to hell,,,right???

This comment ^^^ suggests you have never read the Constitution, and accept the Federalist Society's interpretation that we are still living in the 18th Century.

and your comment suggest youre a commie prick hell bent on destroying the greatest country to ever exist,,

unless of course you can provide where in the constitution this power exist,,,

 

[bendog]

not if private insurance can be more efficient (econ definition) than medicare

Private insurance obviously was until the ACA changed the rules.

PI payed providers medicare rates. And HC costs stopped rising as fast when the ACA was implemented.

I personally am more in the BLF group, than Medicare for all, but the ultimate goal was to pit PI against Medicare, and see who could provided the same services for a cheaper price.

and the constitution can go to hell,,,right???

This comment ^^^ suggests you have never read the Constitution, and accept the Federalist Society's interpretation that we are still living in the 18th Century.

Where in the Constitution does it advocate taking money from one group of people to pay for the insurance of another group of people?

Well …. the income tax

 

[progressive hunter]

Private insurance obviously was until the ACA changed the rules.

PI payed providers medicare rates. And HC costs stopped rising as fast when the ACA was implemented.

I personally am more in the BLF group, than Medicare for all, but the ultimate goal was to pit PI against Medicare, and see who could provided the same services for a cheaper price.

and the constitution can go to hell,,,right???

This comment ^^^ suggests you have never read the Constitution, and accept the Federalist Society's interpretation that we are still living in the 18th Century.

Where in the Constitution does it advocate taking money from one group of people to pay for the insurance of another group of people?

Well …. the income tax

wrong again,,,no where in the 16th does it allow that money to be given to others,,,its for the operation of government business

 

[fncceo]

First of all, good health precedes everything else

Good health, is the slowest form of death.

So, to post a straw man, you must support post natal abortions.

The extremely late term kind.

 

[bendog]

PI payed providers medicare rates. And HC costs stopped rising as fast when the ACA was implemented.

I personally am more in the BLF group, than Medicare for all, but the ultimate goal was to pit PI against Medicare, and see who could provided the same services for a cheaper price.

and the constitution can go to hell,,,right???

This comment ^^^ suggests you have never read the Constitution, and accept the Federalist Society's interpretation that we are still living in the 18th Century.

Where in the Constitution does it advocate taking money from one group of people to pay for the insurance of another group of people?

Well …. the income tax

wrong again,,,no where in the 16th does it allow that money to be given to others,,,its for the operation of government business

You pay for roads and dams in my state. You pay literally for cash payments to me for apartments, and food, and ….. Medicaid. You even pay payroll taxes that cover medicare for people who's incomes were lower, because wages were lower, and who paid less in taxes than they will take out. And the proportion of income you pay varies depending on how much you make.

A tax to pay for healthcare is nothing new, and it goes back over 50 years. In fact, Medicare was never going to be enacted until LBJ and the dems in congress agreed …. it was TAX.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The important thing is that the mandate is gone.

It's important to you to allow scofflaws to use the local public hospital whenever they need to see a doctor. Is that correct?

 

[progressive hunter]

and the constitution can go to hell,,,right???

This comment ^^^ suggests you have never read the Constitution, and accept the Federalist Society's interpretation that we are still living in the 18th Century.

Where in the Constitution does it advocate taking money from one group of people to pay for the insurance of another group of people?

Well …. the income tax

wrong again,,,no where in the 16th does it allow that money to be given to others,,,its for the operation of government business

You pay for roads and dams in my state. You pay literally for cash payments to me for apartments, and food, and ….. Medicaid. You even pay payroll taxes that cover medicare for people who's incomes were lower, because wages were lower, and who paid less in taxes than they will take out. And the proportion of income you pay varies depending on how much you make.

A tax to pay for healthcare is nothing new, and it goes back over 50 years. In fact, Medicare was never going to be enacted until LBJ and the dems in congress agreed …. it was TAX.

slavery used to be legal too,,,
doesnt mean it right

 

[hunarcy]

Private insurance obviously was until the ACA changed the rules.

PI payed providers medicare rates. And HC costs stopped rising as fast when the ACA was implemented.

I personally am more in the BLF group, than Medicare for all, but the ultimate goal was to pit PI against Medicare, and see who could provided the same services for a cheaper price.

and the constitution can go to hell,,,right???

This comment ^^^ suggests you have never read the Constitution, and accept the Federalist Society's interpretation that we are still living in the 18th Century.

Where in the Constitution does it advocate taking money from one group of people to pay for the insurance of another group of people?

Well …. the income tax

Sorry, but that's not what the income tax is for.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The important thing is that the mandate is gone.

It's important to you to allow scofflaws to use the local public hospital whenever they need to see a doctor. Is that correct?

No. I've been to the emergency and paid the bill. Have you stiffed an ER?

 

[Natural Citizen]

First of all, good health precedes everything else. The current ideologies are in conflict, the Democratic Party supports the ACA goals, and the Republican Party seeks to put profit before good health for all.

The only argument the Republican Party can offer is to claim government's intercession on the repeal of the ACA is it is Socialism. A claim which is absurd and an appeal to emotions.

Our government was founded by We the people to, "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Common sense suggests the current iteration of Republicans (RINO's) have move so far to the dark side, that the meaning of the Preamble has been lost.

What do I mean by the Dark Side?

The R. Party's use of Wedge Issues, their lust for power and greed. No one will be able to equate any of the visions highlighted in the Preamble which is part of the current ideology under Trump and the miss-named Freedom Caucus.

The R wing is ripe for the plucking. In time...

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'd rather see AOC vs Massie or somebody like that debating the problems of the nation than a Bush type vs a Clinton type. We need new terms of controversy. We need new players in the game. We need to return the discussion to things that are meaningful. Things that are important. It makes ideas fresh again.

The folks infiltrating the dems are in too much of a hurry, but they got the ball rolling, so that's commendable. Gotta infiltrate the R wing like a thief in the night, though. Sudden, too.

Anyway. The 2024 is where it's at. Best to totally skip the 2020, let em have their fun while they can. A storm is coming.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I'd rather see AOC vs Massie or somebody like that debating the problems of the nation than a Bush type vs a Clinton type. We need new terms of controversy. We need new players in the game. We need to return to things that are meaningful. Things that are iportant. It makes ideas fresh again.

The dems are in too much of a hurry, but they got the ball rolling, so that's commendable. Gotta infiltrate the R wing like a thief in the night, though. Sudden, too.

Anyway. The 2024 is where it's at. Best to totally skip the 2020, let em have their fun while they can. A storm is coming.

What ball did they get rolling?

 

[Wyatt earp]

First of all, good health precedes everything else. The current ideologies are in conflict, the Democratic Party supports the ACA goals, and the Republican Party seeks to put profit before good health for all.

The only argument the Republican Party can offer is to claim government's intercession on the repeal of the ACA is it is Socialism. A claim which is absurd and an appeal to emotions.

Our government was founded by We the people to, "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Common sense suggests the current iteration of Republicans (RINO's) have move so far to the dark side, that the meaning of the Preamble has been lost.

What do I mean by the Dark Side?

The R. Party's use of Wedge Issues, their lust for power and greed. No one will be able to equate any of the visions highlighted in the Preamble which is part of the current ideology under Trump and the miss-named Freedom Caucus.

No freedom precedes everything else in government

 

[Wry Catcher]

The goal of ACA is to provide effective health care with is affordable and it failed.

Conservatives opposed it because they knew they were being lied to.

You are one of the liars.

To be clear, I didn't agree with all its premises, but imo the ACA was intended to be a means to universal coverage, and while Roberts re-wrote it, it was a step in that direction and despite Roberts did curtail cost increases … in a socialistic manner. (-:

IMO, the ACA was intended to weaken private insurance to the point where the government could implement single payer.

not if private insurance can be more efficient (econ definition) than medicare

Private insurance obviously was until the ACA changed the rules.

PI payed providers medicare rates. And HC costs stopped rising as fast when the ACA was implemented.

I personally am more in the BLF group, than Medicare for all, but the ultimate goal was to pit PI against Medicare, and see who could provided the same services for a cheaper price.

The important thing is that the mandate is gone.

It's important to you to allow scofflaws to use the local public hospital whenever they need to see a doctor. Is that correct?

No. I've been to the emergency and paid the bill. Have you stiffed an ER?

Yes, as an adult I've been to the ER twice, both times a result of a back injury. The first time I paid $5.00, my co-pay. The next time, $10.00 as this was what was expected in the new contract. Also, this second visit led to my laminectomy, which was covered by the first $10 - this included five day stay in the hospital (ain't safety benefits great!). It also included my CT Scan, and myelogram and surgery. Only the meds cost more. $10 for each Rx.

 

[Wry Catcher]

First of all, good health precedes everything else. The current ideologies are in conflict, the Democratic Party supports the ACA goals, and the Republican Party seeks to put profit before good health for all.

The only argument the Republican Party can offer is to claim government's intercession on the repeal of the ACA is it is Socialism. A claim which is absurd and an appeal to emotions.

Our government was founded by We the people to, "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Common sense suggests the current iteration of Republicans (RINO's) have move so far to the dark side, that the meaning of the Preamble has been lost.

What do I mean by the Dark Side?

The R. Party's use of Wedge Issues, their lust for power and greed. No one will be able to equate any of the visions highlighted in the Preamble which is part of the current ideology under Trump and the miss-named Freedom Caucus.

No freedom precedes everything else in government

Freedom and Security are on a continuum, they are mutually exclusive.

 

[Wyatt earp]

First of all, good health precedes everything else. The current ideologies are in conflict, the Democratic Party supports the ACA goals, and the Republican Party seeks to put profit before good health for all.

The only argument the Republican Party can offer is to claim government's intercession on the repeal of the ACA is it is Socialism. A claim which is absurd and an appeal to emotions.

Our government was founded by We the people to, "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Common sense suggests the current iteration of Republicans (RINO's) have move so far to the dark side, that the meaning of the Preamble has been lost.

What do I mean by the Dark Side?

The R. Party's use of Wedge Issues, their lust for power and greed. No one will be able to equate any of the visions highlighted in the Preamble which is part of the current ideology under Trump and the miss-named Freedom Caucus.

No freedom precedes everything else in government

Freedom and Security are on a continuum, they are mutually exclusive.

what does that have to do with me paying for your health care?

The government gives me freedom I will take care of the rest.