(05-03-2017 10:02 PM)dfarr Wrote:  The thought that if there was a national baseline plan that everyone got would somehow make people healthier is shortsighted. American healthcare currently is reactive, not proactive, meaning patients go to the doctor when they have a problem, not to prevent them. Until that changes the idea that a baseline plan is somehow going to make people healthier is a myth.

Another problem is that we are lazy as a country and don't like being told "not nice" things. Most of our country is obese and it's not a secret why. When patients go to the doc and are told to lose weight by eating healthier and exercising, they get offended for being told they're fat. I see it daily.

A third problem is the abuse the system would take. Someone previously mentioned frivolous ER visits, and I believe they would increase. I think there was a study out of Oregon that correlated this belief. They expanded Medicaid thinking it would cut down in ER visits, but the opposite happened because instead of getting a primary care doc and getting a routine physical, the patients just used the ER for everything now since they didn't have to pay any money.

Just my two cents as a nurse and nurse practitioner.

I don't believe you. Your avatar says you're a Murse Practitioner.

(05-03-2017 11:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Great, now I get to spend 500 hours documenting every pill, doctors visit etc I've ever had in the last 50 years. 50 million Americans are going to just LOVE that. Remember, if you forget or omit so much as one pill 20 years ago, the insurance companies can permanently deny you coverage and you lose all your assets and/or die.

And 1.8 Billion bucks for the risk pools. That won't even cover the cost of the risk pools for a year in Texas alone. Risk Pool costs are going to be 200 - 500 Billion a year. Because under the GOP plan, they'll simply raise rates on people so that everyone with so much as a cold will be in the Risk Pools. Or will be uninsured. Which means they'll die because our taxpayer funded "Christian" hospitals don't provide surgery unless you pay. You can't get chemo at the ER either. But enough will end up at the ER that will bankrupt 90 percent of rural hospitals. They'll all close. The rate for a person who is 50 years old with diabetes in the Texas Risk Pool will be around 100 grand a year.

Because if you have so much as high cholesterol, you'll be turned down by the insurance companies.

And they'll get to steal all of the reserves. Guess its time to invest in foreign luxury yacht stocks.

My prediction...my premiums will be 100,000 dollars a year, and my plan will cover one PCP visit, have no ER coverage where the doctors are covered and will not cover cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or anything other than aspirin.

I'll probably have to move to California to protect my assets. But I'll probably be able to survive. Either way, I'd rather burn my money in the backyard than pay more than someone at Shell for healthcare.

The GOP plan will kill thousands and ruin millions financially. And will quickly go broke. Cutting medicare by 800 Billion dollars at the same time. That is going to result in an avalanche of new entries into the Risk Pools.

You do have a flair for the dramatic. Or is it just hyperbolic nonsense that you have a flair for?

(05-04-2017 06:25 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 11:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Great, now I get to spend 500 hours documenting every pill, doctors visit etc I've ever had in the last 50 years. 50 million Americans are going to just LOVE that. Remember, if you forget or omit so much as one pill 20 years ago, the insurance companies can permanently deny you coverage and you lose all your assets and/or die.

And 1.8 Billion bucks for the risk pools. That won't even cover the cost of the risk pools for a year in Texas alone. Risk Pool costs are going to be 200 - 500 Billion a year. Because under the GOP plan, they'll simply raise rates on people so that everyone with so much as a cold will be in the Risk Pools. Or will be uninsured. Which means they'll die because our taxpayer funded "Christian" hospitals don't provide surgery unless you pay. You can't get chemo at the ER either. But enough will end up at the ER that will bankrupt 90 percent of rural hospitals. They'll all close. The rate for a person who is 50 years old with diabetes in the Texas Risk Pool will be around 100 grand a year.

Because if you have so much as high cholesterol, you'll be turned down by the insurance companies.

And they'll get to steal all of the reserves. Guess its time to invest in foreign luxury yacht stocks.

My prediction...my premiums will be 100,000 dollars a year, and my plan will cover one PCP visit, have no ER coverage where the doctors are covered and will not cover cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or anything other than aspirin.

I'll probably have to move to California to protect my assets. But I'll probably be able to survive. Either way, I'd rather burn my money in the backyard than pay more than someone at Shell for healthcare.

The GOP plan will kill thousands and ruin millions financially. And will quickly go broke. Cutting medicare by 800 Billion dollars at the same time. That is going to result in an avalanche of new entries into the Risk Pools.

You do have a flair for the dramatic. Or is it just hyperbolic nonsense that you have a flair for?

this sums up ol' tommy boy....

(05-03-2017 10:02 PM)dfarr Wrote:  The thought that if there was a national baseline plan that everyone got would somehow make people healthier is shortsighted. American healthcare currently is reactive, not proactive, meaning patients go to the doctor when they have a problem, not to prevent them. Until that changes the idea that a baseline plan is somehow going to make people healthier is a myth.

Another problem is that we are lazy as a country and don't like being told "not nice" things. Most of our country is obese and it's not a secret why. When patients go to the doc and are told to lose weight by eating healthier and exercising, they get offended for being told they're fat. I see it daily.

A third problem is the abuse the system would take. Someone previously mentioned frivolous ER visits, and I believe they would increase. I think there was a study out of Oregon that correlated this belief. They expanded Medicaid thinking it would cut down in ER visits, but the opposite happened because instead of getting a primary care doc and getting a routine physical, the patients just used the ER for everything now since they didn't have to pay any money.

Just my two cents as a nurse and nurse practitioner.

I don't doubt any of what you posted, however folk who are/were reliant on the ER for their health care continue to go because that is what he know. The idea of getting a primary provider is new. The idea of going in for annual physicals is new. All of this will have to be learned and it will take time.

Perhaps it will take a generation (maybe longer) after we get a truly workable, universal health care system, before will we see the real benefits(healthier society, lower costs), but that should not prohibit us from taking the step now.

(05-04-2017 07:56 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 10:02 PM)dfarr Wrote:  The thought that if there was a national baseline plan that everyone got would somehow make people healthier is shortsighted. American healthcare currently is reactive, not proactive, meaning patients go to the doctor when they have a problem, not to prevent them. Until that changes the idea that a baseline plan is somehow going to make people healthier is a myth.

Another problem is that we are lazy as a country and don't like being told "not nice" things. Most of our country is obese and it's not a secret why. When patients go to the doc and are told to lose weight by eating healthier and exercising, they get offended for being told they're fat. I see it daily.

A third problem is the abuse the system would take. Someone previously mentioned frivolous ER visits, and I believe they would increase. I think there was a study out of Oregon that correlated this belief. They expanded Medicaid thinking it would cut down in ER visits, but the opposite happened because instead of getting a primary care doc and getting a routine physical, the patients just used the ER for everything now since they didn't have to pay any money.

Just my two cents as a nurse and nurse practitioner.

I don't doubt any of what you posted, however folk who are/were reliant on the ER for their health care continue to go because that is what he know. The idea of getting a primary provider is new. The idea of going in for annual physicals is new. All of this will have to be learned and it will take time.

Perhaps it will take a generation (maybe longer) after we get a truly workable, universal health care system, before will we see the real benefits(healthier society, lower costs), but that should not prohibit us from taking the step now.

as practicing medicine continually evolves and is segregated into specifics, the only result is added time and cost.....

that's the crux....

that's why the ER will always be the option for those that cannot afford....

you can come up with any plan you want....but in a capitalistic society, that's the one that many will end up having to choose.....

there's no fixing this one as the numbers continue to grow.....

(05-04-2017 06:25 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 11:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  <snip of your standard Lazytom BS rant>

You do have a flair for the dramatic. Or is it just hyperbolic nonsense that you have a flair for?

Well he's a cartoon character and they typically do.

(05-03-2017 08:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 07:49 PM)Rob Wrote:  That kind of myopic view of our government is not good for the country. None of what you said is a proper opposition to A Bismarck model system.

So now wanting to keep the fruits of your labor instead of having the federal government take it by threat of force is myopic?

I would suggest that you check out why we revolted against England but you've proven in other threads that you are incapable of discerned thining and prefer what is spoon fed to you.

Quote:" When it's a function of the federal government that it isn't charged with in the Constitution indeed I do."

I'll refer you to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." The notion that this isn't a function of the Constitution is incorrect. Congress has the power to levy taxes on us for things that we want.

That tired old simple-minded leftist talking point has been debunked time and time again.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/a-cons...lth-247449

Quote:The United States is one of 86 countries whose constitutions do not guarantee their citizens any kind of health protection. That's the finding of a new study from the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health that examined the level and scope of constitutional protection of specific rights to public health and medical care, as well as the broad right to health.

And the general welfare is provided through government built and funded hospitals.

Quote:The idea of healthcare being a right is not what is being argued. Neither public education nor roads are rights but we know it's a good idea to pool resources together for those common goods. Same with healthcare. Also, it doesn't have to be added to the Constitution because it's already there.

Society as a whole benefits from both roads and education. Society does not benefit from you getting a prostate exam.

Quote:What country do you think you live in?

Pretty sure it's the one that was founded after it rebelled over overbearing government and taxes, not the People's Republic Nanny-state that you obviously desire.

Quote:We have a crap economy, something like a 15% real unemployment rate, and we're returning to Gilded Age wealth inequality. Do you want to live in a country where half the population is a freak accident or pre-existing condition away from their life being ruined because you are too selfish to divorce yourself from flawed principles?

So now wanting to keep the fruits of your labor is both greedy and a flawed principle. How communist of you as well.

It's neither my concern nor responsibility if someone doesn't plan ahead. I scrimp and sacrifice every payday to ensure that I put even a little bit away for unexpected contingencies, even when we were a single income family while my wife was in graduate school. We were the ones eating store brand foods, coupon and sale shopping while paying taxes and getting to watch the leeches of society roll up ahead of us in the checkout line with one buggy full of high priced name brand items that food stamps would buy and another buggy full of the alcohol, junk food and candy that it wouldn't that they paid for with cash. I suggest you read Aesop's fable of the grasshopper and the ant.

And I fail to see how we are going to help our economy or joblessness by raising taxes.

Quote:That doesn't sound like the greatest country in the world. A Bismarck Model would give us cheaper healthcare that everyone could use while maintaining a free market side for people who can afford that. It's the best of all worlds, unless your world is "screw everyone but me."

I'm sure it does sound like the greatest thing in the world to someone who is generous with other people's money. Perhaps you need to work with Owl numbers and y'all jointly create the charity I spoke about if it concerns you so much. That way you and those who feel like you can put your money where your mouth is and leave those of us who don't feel like that alone. Best of both worlds.

Your entire post was fallacious. Yes, I think your view of healthcare is myopic. This is not comparable to the situation we face when revolting against England. The UCLA article does not refute what I'm saying. It points out that our Constitution does not guarantee us healthcare, which is true. I never argued that but nice try. The general welfare can mean a lot of things. It's what allows us to tax for schools, roads, etc. Society as a whole absolutely benefits from universal care. You said I want a Nanny state, which I do not. This isn't communist. Bismarck offers care for all, with bonus insurance you can purchase if you wish, for less money than we currently pay now for our crap system. You are arguing for a system that leaves people to die because insurance companies price them out of care, even though a Bismarck model would not cost you more. That's pretty ******.

(05-04-2017 07:56 AM)BobL Wrote:  I don't doubt any of what you posted, however folk who are/were reliant on the ER for their health care continue to go because that is what he know. The idea of getting a primary provider is new. The idea of going in for annual physicals is new. All of this will have to be learned and it will take time.

Perhaps it will take a generation (maybe longer) after we get a truly workable, universal health care system, before will we see the real benefits(healthier society, lower costs), but that should not prohibit us from taking the step now.

No, they are reliant on the ER primarily because they are too lazy to be inconvenienced to go to the doctor until their situation becomes unbearable.

I spent over 20 years in the public safety field running the calls. When you call an ambulance for a non-life threatening medical complaint at 1400hrs on a Tuesday it's laziness. When you call an ambulance at 0300hrs on a Thursday for a toothache you've had for almost two weeks despite the fact that the government subsidized apartment you live in is across the five lane highway from a free dental clinic that operates five days a week it's laziness.

(05-04-2017 11:02 AM)Rob Wrote:  Your entire post was fallacious.

Whatever you say comrade.

(05-04-2017 11:27 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:02 AM)Rob Wrote:  Your entire post was fallacious.

Whatever you say comrade.

I'm seeing a pattern with you. Rather than refute points with evidence or data, you use meaningless platitudes. I'll be happy to debate these issues with you but you'll have to actually try.

(05-04-2017 11:30 AM)Rob Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:27 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:02 AM)Rob Wrote:  Your entire post was fallacious.

Whatever you say comrade.

I'm seeing a pattern with you. Rather than refute points with evidence or data, you use meaningless platitudes. I'll be happy to debate these issues with you but you'll have to actually try.

There's nothing to debate. Until you can point out to me where in the US Constitution the federal government is charged with stealing money from me by threat of force to pay for someone else's healthcare you simply do not have a leg to stand on.

(05-04-2017 11:42 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:30 AM)Rob Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:27 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:02 AM)Rob Wrote:  Your entire post was fallacious.

Whatever you say comrade.

I'm seeing a pattern with you. Rather than refute points with evidence or data, you use meaningless platitudes. I'll be happy to debate these issues with you but you'll have to actually try.

There's nothing to debate. Until you can point out to me where in the US Constitution the federal government is charged with stealing money from me by threat of force to pay for someone else's healthcare you simply do not have a leg to stand on.

Kap. I agree that it really isn't a constitutional requirement for the Federal government to be in the healthcare business. Wondering, would you be okay with your home state developing and mandating a Bismark type of healthcare system?

I also agree with you about a lack of "taking care of oneself" that segments of our population too often saddle our EMT's, ER's, etc. with. I'm sure we could come up with some way to "encourage" the freebie folks to see a Dr. in the conventional way as opposed to the ambulance/ER way you are all to familiar with. (my son-in-law is a firefighter/EMT - I hear the stories).

Your argument about not paying for someone else's healthcare I disagree with however as I guarantee you are in fact paying for those that don't in the form of increased premiums today. Any of us that have and pay for our own health insurance pay for the freeloaders today and have for years. I can't see where a Bismark system would be any different than today except for possibly which entity takes the money from us. So long as my net payout doesn't change, I really don't care who gets the money.

(05-04-2017 12:05 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Kap. I agree that it really isn't a constitutional requirement for the Federal government to be in the healthcare business. Wondering, would you be okay with your home state developing and mandating a Bismark type of healthcare system?

I would be far more agreeable if it were a state matter as that would actually be Constitutional and there's a far greater chance of state representatives following the will of the people than the federal government.

Quote:I also agree with you about a lack of "taking care of oneself" that segments of our population too often saddle our EMT's, ER's, etc. with. I'm sure we could come up with some way to "encourage" the freebie folks to see a Dr. in the conventional way as opposed to the ambulance/ER way you are all to familiar with. (my son-in-law is a firefighter/EMT - I hear the stories).

About the only way I know of is to not pay for frivolous ER visits/ambulance transport fees. Make them personally responsible. My stories are bad but I only saw a small portion of the abuse. I imagine dfarr could easily trump my stories without breaking a sweat from actually working in the ER.

Quote:Your argument about not paying for someone else's healthcare I disagree with however as I guarantee you are in fact paying for those that don't in the form of increased premiums today. Any of us that have and pay for our own health insurance pay for the freeloaders today and have for years. I can't see where a Bismark system would be any different than today except for possibly which entity takes the money from us. So long as my net payout doesn't change, I really don't care who gets the money.

The difference is I choose to pay for health insurance. Nobody is coming to kick in my door and take away my freedom if I don't buy health insurance......at least not yet anyway. The same can't be said for taxes.

(05-04-2017 11:42 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:30 AM)Rob Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:27 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 11:02 AM)Rob Wrote:  Your entire post was fallacious.

Whatever you say comrade.

I'm seeing a pattern with you. Rather than refute points with evidence or data, you use meaningless platitudes. I'll be happy to debate these issues with you but you'll have to actually try.

There's nothing to debate. Until you can point out to me where in the US Constitution the federal government is charged with stealing money from me by threat of force to pay for someone else's healthcare you simply do not have a leg to stand on.

Aren't you the one who falsely claimed that taxes were extortion? This is why your view of this issue is myopic. The government wasn't set up to stay the exact same as it looked in 1776 for all of eternity. Just because the Constitution doesn't demand the Bismarck model, doesn't change the fact that it allows it. This isn't theft or communism, it's a smart solution to a big problem.

A) Tend to agree with Owl that 'your BASIC health' is in my self interests...

B) Trump (or any other politician) won't propose Bismarck because Bismarck won't pass. It won't even come CLOSE to passing. Same reason why VAT doesn't get proposed, and we've been teaching people about it far longer. For the 10 informed people who would change their minds and support Trump if he proposed such things, there are 1000 uninformed who would come out against him.... and of course there are the democrats who would oppose ANYTHING he proposed (like some Republicans did Obama)

C) Unless you're suggesting getting rid of Medicaid taxes (and really, Medicare as well) and all of the 'hospital district taxes' and 'sin taxes' and other things, then we already HAVE such a system (basic care for everyone). The problem with it is that it is disorganized and misunderstood.... the result of decades of political trading. In this century, we should be able to manage it better (information flow is far easier)


All of those who suggest we 'can't go back to what we had'.... SURE we can. All we have to do is change the NAME of 'Exchange policy subsidies' back to Medicaid and perhaps pass some sort of 'national minimums' and let people who can do so, opt out... or buy supplements... I mean seriously... what is the difference between a doctor who accepts an ACA exchange bronze policy and one that accepts medicaid? The BIGGEST difference is the states control medicaid, and the feds control exchange policies.

I suspect such proposals would eliminate most coverage (not life saving) for those here illegally.

The gray area would be the 28yr old making 30k/yr who can choose to have a room-mate in a 2br apt OR drive a Chevy Aveo OR have a 40 inch TV and pay for his own health insurance (likely making better life choices as a result), or politicians buy his vote by covering him out of public funds and he can live alone in a 1br or drive a Camaro or have a 50 inch TV.... and also likely makes poorer life choices because he's not responsible for the consequences. This is where democrats make their hay.

The SIMPLEST solution and one that might actually get proposed is Medicaid for all (except Medicare eligible people who paid for it). County clinics, however your state wants to deliver 'basic' care to you.... By basic care I mean you get well checks and SIMPLE contraception and pre-natal care and birth and the like all with no out-of pocket. Like any other system in the world, the 'volume' will determine whether you actually get care or not. You also have a catastrophic policy where life saving issues are covered... but not unlimited.... just like everywhere else in the world. a 90yr old life-long drinker with kidney failure (or the 76th this year when the budget is for 75) isn't likely to get that transplant... same as everywhere else in the world (death panels). In between, you have a large copay ($6,000+ on most of the ACA policies and 20% on Medicare). You can go outside your policy to a doc-in-a-box if you want more convenience... and opt out entirely of medicaid (like most always have) to get better access/doctors and just buy insurance.

This is essentially what the ACA is, but then you add all sorts of levels of bureaucracy and verbiage designed not to make things better, but to make things easier to sell to stupid people (or fit on a bumper sticker).

All we've done is changed medicaid into an insurance subsidy... and taken the control away from the states and given it to the feds. HUGE power grab. Everything else is semantics and 'political trading'.

(05-04-2017 12:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 12:05 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Kap. I agree that it really isn't a constitutional requirement for the Federal government to be in the healthcare business. Wondering, would you be okay with your home state developing and mandating a Bismark type of healthcare system?

I would be far more agreeable if it were a state matter as that would actually be Constitutional and there's a far greater chance of state representatives following the will of the people than the federal government.

Quote:I also agree with you about a lack of "taking care of oneself" that segments of our population too often saddle our EMT's, ER's, etc. with. I'm sure we could come up with some way to "encourage" the freebie folks to see a Dr. in the conventional way as opposed to the ambulance/ER way you are all to familiar with. (my son-in-law is a firefighter/EMT - I hear the stories).

About the only way I know of is to not pay for frivolous ER visits/ambulance transport fees. Make them personally responsible. My stories are bad but I only saw a small portion of the abuse. I imagine dfarr could easily trump my stories without breaking a sweat from actually working in the ER.

Quote:Your argument about not paying for someone else's healthcare I disagree with however as I guarantee you are in fact paying for those that don't in the form of increased premiums today. Any of us that have and pay for our own health insurance pay for the freeloaders today and have for years. I can't see where a Bismark system would be any different than today except for possibly which entity takes the money from us. So long as my net payout doesn't change, I really don't care who gets the money.

The difference is I choose to pay for health insurance. Nobody is coming to kick in my door and take away my freedom if I don't buy health insurance......at least not yet anyway. The same can't be said for taxes.

Had a lady come to the ER via ambulance one night because she wanted a blood pregnancy test. She didn't trust the home urine pregnancy tests. True story.

(05-04-2017 12:39 PM)Rob Wrote:  Aren't you the one who falsely claimed that taxes were extortion?

LOL

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion

Quote:Extortion

The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

What happens if you don't pay your taxes?

Interesting point about taxes and cesspools..."cess" is the old English word meaning taxes or assessments...appropriate.

(05-04-2017 01:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 12:39 PM)Rob Wrote:  Aren't you the one who falsely claimed that taxes were extortion?

LOL

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion

Quote:Extortion

The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

What happens if you don't pay your taxes?

"Under the Common Law, extortion is a misdemeanor consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer."

Taxation is a right given to Congress by the Constitution, which makes it legal. If you keep coming at me with this crazy **** I'm going to be your worst nightmare haha. Get it together, man!

(05-04-2017 01:33 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 01:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 12:39 PM)Rob Wrote:  Aren't you the one who falsely claimed that taxes were extortion?

LOL

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion

Quote:Extortion

The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

What happens if you don't pay your taxes?

"Under the Common Law, extortion is a misdemeanor consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer."

Taxation is a right given to Congress by the Constitution, which makes it legal. If you keep coming at me with this crazy **** I'm going to be your worst nightmare haha. Get it together, man!

Providing healthcare for all citizens is not a responsibility granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

https://www.constituteproject.org/consti...erica_1992

Quote:Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.