Affordable Care Act

cajunrevenge said:
I personally would be more than happy to compromise on healthcare so long as we pay for it by cutting from other things so we dont add 1 more dollar in new spending. Prefferably money saved from ending the wars and slavery.
Click to expand...

I personally think cutting the insurance industry out of care is the first step.

Both patient insurance and mal practice.

Malpractice will take some creativity.

Doctors are human and will make mistakes
 
sturg33 said:
Forcing a doctor to participate.

Forcing an individual to participate.
Click to expand...

Except that you don't have to be a doctor, being a doctor is a choice. On top of that, the difference between single payer and the current system (aside from the uninsured issue) is that single payer you deal with one insurance company, instead of the myriad that are out there now. So doctors are rarely affected. As far as pay goes, there's not a massive difference in Doctor pay in US and other countries when bigger scopes are applied. There are differences but again, not massive. And I highly doubt the selling point on the program is paying doctors less. It will be in saving massive costs of insurers and probably administrative costs of people hwo just deal with the collection of insurers.

As far as forcing an individual to participate, how is that different than any other taxation? Aren't I forced to participate in war funding? Or in any number of other things? The difference is that this is something that actually helps a **** ton of people. Add in the net savings to a healthy majority of Americans (the insured are already paying copious amounts fo rthe threat of the uninsured)
 
zitothebrave said:
Except that you don't have to be a doctor, being a doctor is a choice. On top of that, the difference between single payer and the current system (aside from the uninsured issue) is that single payer you deal with one insurance company, instead of the myriad that are out there now. So doctors are rarely affected. As far as pay goes, there's not a massive difference in Doctor pay in US and other countries when bigger scopes are applied. There are differences but again, not massive. And I highly doubt the selling point on the program is paying doctors less. It will be in saving massive costs of insurers and probably administrative costs of people hwo just deal with the collection of insurers.

As far as forcing an individual to participate, how is that different than any other taxation? Aren't I forced to participate in war funding? Or in any number of other things? The difference is that this is something that actually helps a **** ton of people. Add in the net savings to a healthy majority of Americans (the insured are already paying copious amounts fo rthe threat of the uninsured)
Click to expand...

This was futile as soon as the "loss of liberty" card came out.
 
zitothebrave said:
Except that you don't have to be a doctor, being a doctor is a choice. On top of that, the difference between single payer and the current system (aside from the uninsured issue) is that single payer you deal with one insurance company, instead of the myriad that are out there now. So doctors are rarely affected. As far as pay goes, there's not a massive difference in Doctor pay in US and other countries when bigger scopes are applied. There are differences but again, not massive. And I highly doubt the selling point on the program is paying doctors less. It will be in saving massive costs of insurers and probably administrative costs of people hwo just deal with the collection of insurers.
Click to expand...

That's true - but when you guarantee health care to the public, you have to force doctors to provide that care. Or you have to steal from the public to incentivize those doctors with enough pay to it. Someone loses liberty in that equation.

Today, for example, a doctor can refuse to accept medicaid. Will they be allowed to refuse under single payer?

zitothebrave said:
As far as forcing an individual to participate, how is that different than any other taxation? Aren't I forced to participate in war funding? Or in any number of other things? The difference is that this is something that actually helps a **** ton of people. Add in the net savings to a healthy majority of Americans (the insured are already paying copious amounts fo rthe threat of the uninsured)
Click to expand...

You're right. It's not different than other taxation. You may have heard me say before that taxation is the equivalent to theft. Theft would qualify as a loss of liberty.

In this scenario, I'm being forced to pay a **** ton of money to subsidize others, and don't have an option to not participate. And if other countries are an example, it will be for worse care.
 
Julio3000 said:
This was futile as soon as the "loss of liberty" card came out.
Click to expand...

The difference between you and me is that you advocate for personal liberty for things you politically care about - like gay marriage.

I advocate for personal liberty for everyone at all times. And yea - I recognize that apparently makes me crazy and impossible to take seriously. Kind of sad when you think about it
 
sturg33 said:
The difference between you and me is that you advocate for personal liberty for things you politically care about - like gay marriage.

I advocate for personal liberty for everyone at all times. And yea - I recognize that apparently makes me crazy and impossible to take seriously. Kind of sad when you think about it
Click to expand...

No, but it makes you fairly incapable of articulating coherent ideas about civil society, in that any loss of liberty is a non-starter.
 
Julio3000 said:
No, but it makes you fairly incapable of articulating coherent ideas about civil society, in that any loss of liberty is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

Yes - because without the government intervening in every aspect of our lives, how would we ever survive (and who would build the roads????)
 
sturg33 said:
That's true - but when you guarantee health care to the public, you have to force doctors to provide that care. Or you have to steal from the public to incentivize those doctors with enough pay to it. Someone loses liberty in that equation.

Today, for example, a doctor can refuse to accept medicaid. Will they be allowed to refuse under single payer?

You're right. It's not different than other taxation. You may have heard me say before that taxation is the equivalent to theft. Theft would qualify as a loss of liberty.

In this scenario, I'm being forced to pay a **** ton of money to subsidize others, and don't have an option to not participate. And if other countries are an example, it will be for worse care.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna answer these in reverse order, just for fun.

1. You're already subsidizing others by having health insurance. Sure you could opt out, then you would get financially ruined when you go to the ER. It's already in place, this is a better implementation. As far as worse care

http://www.ajmc.com/contributor/jul...ity-of-us-healthcare-compared-with-the-world/

2. LMAO the taxation is theft. As someone who loves the constitution, you'd realize that it's in the constitution. In both it's original form and via Amendment. If you don't like it work on an amendment, but no one agrees with you.

3. Why would that matter? They'd get paid no matter what. They refuse Medicaid because they get paid less.

4. How is it forcing doctors when they sign up for it? I'm a bartender do I grumble when I have to serve a drink to someone? I'm a baseball player, why am I forced to hit a ball. Stupid logic.
 
zitothebrave said:
I'm gonna answer these in reverse order, just for fun.

1. You're already subsidizing others by having health insurance. Sure you could opt out, then you would get financially ruined when you go to the ER. It's already in place, this is a better implementation. As far as worse care

http://www.ajmc.com/contributor/jul...ity-of-us-healthcare-compared-with-the-world/

2. LMAO the taxation is theft. As someone who loves the constitution, you'd realize that it's in the constitution. In both it's original form and via Amendment. If you don't like it work on an amendment, but no one agrees with you.

3. Why would that matter? They'd get paid no matter what. They refuse Medicaid because they get paid less.

4. How is it forcing doctors when they sign up for it? I'm a bartender do I grumble when I have to serve a drink to someone? I'm a baseball player, why am I forced to hit a ball. Stupid logic.
Click to expand...

1. I am subsidizing others - which I don't like. But it at least it is my choice to do it (well - it WAS my choice). Also - I do not contend the US has the best health care system in the world. We have way to much public subsidization - which has ridiculously increased costs. We still have the best drug innovations in the world (thanks to the pursuit of profit) and some of the shortest wait times in the world. That is pretty amazing considering that the US has 325m people

2. My biggest issue is the personal income tax, which was only installed in 1913 - and that is government simply confiscating our money at different rates for different people (or discrimination). By doing this, it allows them to fund their horrible expansion - which includes all the wars you and I both hate.

3. They get paid less. They leave the profession. There are less doctors.

4. A doctor signs up to practice medicine. If the government guarantees healthcare, the doctor can no longer choose to do what he/she wants, and must treat everyone at the rate the government decides is fair. They have much less freedom to make choices to allow them to make more money. This is why you'll see less doctors in a single payer system, because people just won't spend the time/money getting the education training. My gf is about to graduate med school now and she is already regretting the decision to ever get started.

Beyond all that - single payer just won't work in the US like it does in precious places like Denmark:

- We have 325m people compared to 5m
- We are a less healthy country
- Denmark taxes their people at 55%... how is that better than paying a month insurance policy? If my taxes were raised that much I'd be much worse off
 
sturg33 said:
1. I am subsidizing others - which I don't like. But it at least it is my choice to do it (well - it WAS my choice). Also - I do not contend the US has the best health care system in the world. We have way to much public subsidization - which has ridiculously increased costs. We still have the best drug innovations in the world (thanks to the pursuit of profit) and some of the shortest wait times in the world. That is pretty amazing considering that the US has 325m people

2. My biggest issue is the personal income tax, which was only installed in 1913 - and that is government simply confiscating our money at different rates for different people (or discrimination). By doing this, it allows them to fund their horrible expansion - which includes all the wars you and I both hate.

3. They get paid less. They leave the profession. There are less doctors.

4. A doctor signs up to practice medicine. If the government guarantees healthcare, the doctor can no longer choose to do what he/she wants, and must treat everyone at the rate the government decides is fair. They have much less freedom to make choices to allow them to make more money. This is why you'll see less doctors in a single payer system, because people just won't spend the time/money getting the education training. My gf is about to graduate med school now and she is already regretting the decision to ever get started.

Beyond all that - single payer just won't work in the US like it does in precious places like Denmark:

- We have 325m people compared to 5m
- We are a less healthy country
- Denmark taxes their people at 55%... how is that better than paying a month insurance policy? If my taxes were raised that much I'd be much worse off
Click to expand...

I'd encourage you to read up on the contemporary sp policy proposals. Some of your assumptions don't really square up.
 
Julio3000 said:
I'd encourage you to read up on the contemporary sp policy proposals. Some of your assumptions don't really square up.
Click to expand...

Your assumption is that if we get the government more involved it will reduce costs and give better are to everyone. I'd like one example where that was true in the United States.

You can make anything work with Bernie level math
 
sturg33 said:
Your assumption is that if we get the government more involved it will reduce costs and give better are to everyone. I'd like one example where that was true in the United States.
Click to expand...

National Parks.
 
sturg33 said:
1. I am subsidizing others - which I don't like. But it at least it is my choice to do it (well - it WAS my choice). Also - I do not contend the US has the best health care system in the world. We have way to much public subsidization - which has ridiculously increased costs. We still have the best drug innovations in the world (thanks to the pursuit of profit) and some of the shortest wait times in the world. That is pretty amazing considering that the US has 325m people

2. My biggest issue is the personal income tax, which was only installed in 1913 - and that is government simply confiscating our money at different rates for different people (or discrimination). By doing this, it allows them to fund their horrible expansion - which includes all the wars you and I both hate.

3. They get paid less. They leave the profession. There are less doctors.

4. A doctor signs up to practice medicine. If the government guarantees healthcare, the doctor can no longer choose to do what he/she wants, and must treat everyone at the rate the government decides is fair. They have much less freedom to make choices to allow them to make more money. This is why you'll see less doctors in a single payer system, because people just won't spend the time/money getting the education training. My gf is about to graduate med school now and she is already regretting the decision to ever get started.

Beyond all that - single payer just won't work in the US like it does in precious places like Denmark:

- We have 325m people compared to 5m
- We are a less healthy country
- Denmark taxes their people at 55%... how is that better than paying a month insurance policy? If my taxes were raised that much I'd be much worse off
Click to expand...

1. Wait times are not really better here. May be better if you're on the best policies, but it's on par with other nations who have Single Payer. We have the drug innovations, but is anyone really healthier? The for profit nature of the drug business keeps them thinking of ways to keep you sick.

2. Personal income tax is the law. I mean to keep it simple, if you don't like it start a movement to repeal it. Taxing is constitutional and so is income tax.

3. You forgot part 4, other doctors replace them. By your simple logic of supply and demand, when the demand for doctors goes up so will the supply. My guess is the alleviation that gets doctors past the slightly lower pay, will come when we change how medical school works.

4. Pretty much everything here is a strawman.

Beyond that, Denmark is one country.

Germany has a population of 80M
Germany has a top marginal rate at 45%

UK has a population of 65M
UK has a top marginal tax rate of 45%

US's top marginal tax rate is 39.6%

If you roll in the money people pay for healthcare there is likely a push vs. current taxation.
 
House Republicans have been hinting they may introduce a new plan to replace Obamacare before the 100th day of the Trump presidency. Naturally, giving President Trump something to arbitrarily tout as an achievement (even if it passes the House, the Senate looms) in advance of the arbitrary 100-day mark is far more important than the human toll the proposal would have on millions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ler-than-the-last-one/?utm_term=.9ba6da797e69
 
please tell me there aren't idiots in here saying national parks should be privately run?
 
DEiIIyCXoAAvOAi.jpg:large
 
It appears we are back to ACA.
Repeal and replace with a 2 year time frame is the (R) goal.
Let's get up to speed with what that means

Chris Murphy‏Verified account @ChrisMurphyCT 9h9 hours ago

CBO scored repeal without a replacement - it's a humanitarian disaster of incomprehensible scale. 32M lose insurance. Premiums go up 100%.

DFBAuVzXgAAfP-5.jpg:large


There used to be a poster on this and the Scout board that would go on and on about entitlements and how they ere to be the death knell of civilization as we know it.
Then with a family,mortgage etc he was laid off. After exhausting his rainy day funds (I think that is right) he was forced to accept unemployment compensation.
His life then required a different perspective on his notion of entitlements.
Sure hope none of you get caught in this repeal entanglement like our friend did with unemployment.
Big difference between missing a house payment and funding a sick child or dealing with a catastrophic illness
 
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has become the third Republican to throw cold water on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's attempt to bring a simple repeal of the Affordable Care Act to the floor. McConnell wants to bring up the Zombie Trumpcare bill that the House passed and then amend it with a simple repeal bill, giving the Senate a two-year deadline to replace it (like that’ll happen). Thus, the key to stopping this entirely is in the motion to proceed to considering the House bill in the first place. Three senators now saying that they will not vote on that motion to proceed stops this thing in its tracks. They are perilously close to being there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top