(08-03-2017 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:27 AM)Claw Wrote:  I don't believe single payer would be Constitutional.

The Supremes have been pretty adept at applying "general welfare" to mean most anything.

I don't believe single payer would be any good.

I also don't believe that many of the people saying "single payer" actually want single payer. Or that they know what single payer actually means.

Nailed it.

(08-03-2017 09:04 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 06:07 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:03 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  What are we replacing it with?

Single payer. Cut out the middle-man insurance company largesse that drives up costs.

Or that you have the right to try with your own money

(08-03-2017 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:27 AM)Claw Wrote:  I don't believe single payer would be Constitutional.

The Supremes have been pretty adept at applying "general welfare" to mean most anything.

I don't believe single payer would be any good.

I also don't believe that many of the people saying "single payer" actually want single payer. Or that they know what single payer actually means.

To many Americans "Single Payer" and "Universal Health Care" mean the same thing...the government provides health care to everyone for "free"...you know like in England and Canada. #usefulidiots

(08-03-2017 07:51 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:27 AM)Claw Wrote:  I don't believe single payer would be Constitutional.

The Supremes have been pretty adept at applying "general welfare" to mean most anything.

I don't believe single payer would be any good.

I also don't believe that many of the people saying "single payer" actually want single payer. Or that they know what single payer actually means.

To many Americans "Single Payer" and "Universal Health Care" mean the same thing...the government provides health care to everyone for "free"...you know like in England and Canada. #usefulidiots

Talk to people living under single payer. Its not "free" and many over there will tell you its a bit of stretch to even call it "healthcare".

(08-03-2017 08:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 07:51 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:27 AM)Claw Wrote:  I don't believe single payer would be Constitutional.

The Supremes have been pretty adept at applying "general welfare" to mean most anything.

I don't believe single payer would be any good.

I also don't believe that many of the people saying "single payer" actually want single payer. Or that they know what single payer actually means.

To many Americans "Single Payer" and "Universal Health Care" mean the same thing...the government provides health care to everyone for "free"...you know like in England and Canada. #usefulidiots

Talk to people living under single payer. Its not "free" and many over there will tell you its a bit of stretch to even call it "healthcare".

Yep. Adding to that...
control of citizens access to healthcare allows government even more day to day rule over their lives, making them dependent and controllable.

(08-03-2017 08:25 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 08:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 07:51 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:27 AM)Claw Wrote:  I don't believe single payer would be Constitutional.

The Supremes have been pretty adept at applying "general welfare" to mean most anything.

I don't believe single payer would be any good.

I also don't believe that many of the people saying "single payer" actually want single payer. Or that they know what single payer actually means.

To many Americans "Single Payer" and "Universal Health Care" mean the same thing...the government provides health care to everyone for "free"...you know like in England and Canada. #usefulidiots

Talk to people living under single payer. Its not "free" and many over there will tell you its a bit of stretch to even call it "healthcare".

Yep. Adding to that...
control of citizens access to healthcare allows government even more day to day rule over their lives, making them dependent and controllable.

That's why the leftists want it so bad. The "leaders" on the left want the control and the sheep want someone to take all responsibility away from them.

Me I just want to keep the money I earn and be left the eff alone.

(07-31-2017 07:50 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  The GOP has 3 choices:

1. Repeal Obamacare and pay the very high political costs of doing that, while creating more chaos and havoc within health care and insurance industry that could itself be very costly.

2. Do nothing and let the clock on the ticking time bomb that is the Obamacare system blow up, in which case it won't be long before we get a Democrat white house and congress that will institute single payer.

3. Recognize that health care costs are out of control and come up with a real plan to address them.

Number 3 appears to not even be in consideration.

Because 1 and 3 are essentially the same thing.

Obamacare promised everything to everyone without any intention of actually paying for it by hiding a lot of the increases among all of the OTHER increases... and any cost-effective replacement would by definition have to cost more... which means Republicans (especially libertarians) would be raising taxes to pay for something they didn't want in the first place.

Political suicide.

(08-04-2017 10:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because 1 and 3 are essentially the same thing.
Obamacare promised everything to everyone without any intention of actually paying for it by hiding a lot of the increases among all of the OTHER increases... and any cost-effective replacement would by definition have to cost more... which means Republicans (especially libertarians) would be raising taxes to pay for something they didn't want in the first place.
Political suicide.

How about if we can lower taxes to pay for it?

A universal basic health care package could certainly cost less than what our government spends on health care today. France does it. And their cost and standard of living certainly approximate ours. How they do it is because of what they don't cover. They cover preventive, routine, and life-saving care. The rest they leave up to the private system. We could do that.

(08-04-2017 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because 1 and 3 are essentially the same thing.
Obamacare promised everything to everyone without any intention of actually paying for it by hiding a lot of the increases among all of the OTHER increases... and any cost-effective replacement would by definition have to cost more... which means Republicans (especially libertarians) would be raising taxes to pay for something they didn't want in the first place.
Political suicide.

How about if we can lower taxes to pay for it?

A universal basic health care package could certainly cost less than what our government spends on health care today. France does it. And their cost and standard of living certainly approximate ours. How they do it is because of what they don't cover. They cover preventive, routine, and life-saving care. The rest they leave up to the private system. We could do that.

Define universal basic healthcare package...what's actually in it...checkups and shots? Stitches and broken bones? Prosthetics? Transplants? Chemo and radiation? Latest drugs and treatments? Who provides the care? Clinics? Private docs?
Unless everything is provided to everyone equally the left will scream about the poor not having equal access to the same care as the rich.

(08-04-2017 11:40 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because 1 and 3 are essentially the same thing.
Obamacare promised everything to everyone without any intention of actually paying for it by hiding a lot of the increases among all of the OTHER increases... and any cost-effective replacement would by definition have to cost more... which means Republicans (especially libertarians) would be raising taxes to pay for something they didn't want in the first place.
Political suicide.

How about if we can lower taxes to pay for it?

A universal basic health care package could certainly cost less than what our government spends on health care today. France does it. And their cost and standard of living certainly approximate ours. How they do it is because of what they don't cover. They cover preventive, routine, and life-saving care. The rest they leave up to the private system. We could do that.

Define universal basic healthcare package...what's actually in it...checkups and shots? Stitches and broken bones? Prosthetics? Transplants? Chemo and radiation? Latest drugs and treatments? Who provides the care? Clinics? Private docs?
Unless everything is provided to everyone equally the left will scream about the poor not having equal access to the same care as the rich.

Great strategy--treat everyone the same! Personally, I hope Trump blocks the insurance company bail out payments. That way EVERYONE will get to pay the SAME premiums the middle class is ALREADY STUCK paying. How long before the Democrats resistance to REAL healthcare reform collapses.

(08-04-2017 11:40 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because 1 and 3 are essentially the same thing.
Obamacare promised everything to everyone without any intention of actually paying for it by hiding a lot of the increases among all of the OTHER increases... and any cost-effective replacement would by definition have to cost more... which means Republicans (especially libertarians) would be raising taxes to pay for something they didn't want in the first place.
Political suicide.

How about if we can lower taxes to pay for it?

A universal basic health care package could certainly cost less than what our government spends on health care today. France does it. And their cost and standard of living certainly approximate ours. How they do it is because of what they don't cover. They cover preventive, routine, and life-saving care. The rest they leave up to the private system. We could do that.

Define universal basic healthcare package...what's actually in it...checkups and shots? Stitches and broken bones? Prosthetics? Transplants? Chemo and radiation? Latest drugs and treatments? Who provides the care? Clinics? Private docs?
Unless everything is provided to everyone equally the left will scream about the poor not having equal access to the same care as the rich.

That's the point and MY point, 44

and Owl, you know I'm with you.

I've wanted someone to look into a donut policy that is what a lot of Americans had pre-ACA.... where GP visits are covered... and catastrophes.... but not lots of things in the middle/diseases often of choice. Not dislike your preventative, routine and life saving....

But yes... the left will scream about it.

(08-04-2017 12:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 11:40 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because 1 and 3 are essentially the same thing.
Obamacare promised everything to everyone without any intention of actually paying for it by hiding a lot of the increases among all of the OTHER increases... and any cost-effective replacement would by definition have to cost more... which means Republicans (especially libertarians) would be raising taxes to pay for something they didn't want in the first place.
Political suicide.

How about if we can lower taxes to pay for it?

A universal basic health care package could certainly cost less than what our government spends on health care today. France does it. And their cost and standard of living certainly approximate ours. How they do it is because of what they don't cover. They cover preventive, routine, and life-saving care. The rest they leave up to the private system. We could do that.

Define universal basic healthcare package...what's actually in it...checkups and shots? Stitches and broken bones? Prosthetics? Transplants? Chemo and radiation? Latest drugs and treatments? Who provides the care? Clinics? Private docs?
Unless everything is provided to everyone equally the left will scream about the poor not having equal access to the same care as the rich.

That's the point and MY point, 44

and Owl, you know I'm with you.

I've wanted someone to look into a donut policy that is what a lot of Americans had pre-ACA.... where GP visits are covered... and catastrophes.... but not lots of things in the middle/diseases often of choice. Not dislike your preventative, routine and life saving....

But yes... the left will scream about it.

"Life-saving" is as wide open and open to interpretation adjective as "general welfare" is in the preamble. If you are diabetic your insulin is "life-saving"...if your arteries are clogged your angioplasty is lifesaving. If you have emphysema your oxygen tank is lifesaving. If you are obese your a district surgery is life saving.

Any kind of covered basic care has to be well visits, vaccinations, and true emergency care. With the true emergencies clearly defined (serious accident, heart attack, stroke, etc.) and the included covered emergency care provided also being clearly defined. No rehab. No long term hospital stays, etc.



Life saving is way to wide open for interpretation.

(08-04-2017 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because 1 and 3 are essentially the same thing.
Obamacare promised everything to everyone without any intention of actually paying for it by hiding a lot of the increases among all of the OTHER increases... and any cost-effective replacement would by definition have to cost more... which means Republicans (especially libertarians) would be raising taxes to pay for something they didn't want in the first place.
Political suicide.

How about if we can lower taxes to pay for it?

A universal basic health care package could certainly cost less than what our government spends on health care today. France does it. And their cost and standard of living certainly approximate ours. How they do it is because of what they don't cover. They cover preventive, routine, and life-saving care. The rest they leave up to the private system. We could do that.

Surely.

(08-04-2017 12:51 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  "Life-saving" is as wide open and open to interpretation adjective as "general welfare" is in the preamble. If you are diabetic your insulin is "life-saving"...if your arteries are clogged your angioplasty is lifesaving. If you have emphysema your oxygen tank is lifesaving. If you are obese your a district surgery is life saving.

Any kind of covered basic care has to be well visits, vaccinations, and true emergency care. With the true emergencies clearly defined (serious accident, heart attack, stroke, etc.) and the included covered emergency care provided also being clearly defined. No rehab. No long term hospital stays, etc.



Life saving is way to wide open for interpretation.

Not for an ER.

Life saving has a very specific meaning under EMTALA and it is medical, not legal.

Of course that opens up a whole different can of worms and puts the government between the patient and their doctor once again.

The best definition would be what the government has in the past compensated ERs for providing. If they didn't cover it before, they shouldn't be covering it today. I feel strongly that 99+% of the 'events' we are likely to come across (such as your insulin example) have been seen before.

I think your point is that people will complain, but that's another issue.

(08-04-2017 11:40 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because 1 and 3 are essentially the same thing.
Obamacare promised everything to everyone without any intention of actually paying for it by hiding a lot of the increases among all of the OTHER increases... and any cost-effective replacement would by definition have to cost more... which means Republicans (especially libertarians) would be raising taxes to pay for something they didn't want in the first place.
Political suicide.

How about if we can lower taxes to pay for it?
A universal basic health care package could certainly cost less than what our government spends on health care today. France does it. And their cost and standard of living certainly approximate ours. How they do it is because of what they don't cover. They cover preventive, routine, and life-saving care. The rest they leave up to the private system. We could do that.

Define universal basic healthcare package...what's actually in it...checkups and shots? Stitches and broken bones? Prosthetics? Transplants? Chemo and radiation? Latest drugs and treatments? Who provides the care? Clinics? Private docs?
Unless everything is provided to everyone equally the left will scream about the poor not having equal access to the same care as the rich.

You could start by defining it the way the French do. They've obviously made it work. Basically just give everybody a voucher for a fixed amount, and let the insurance companies design plans to fit that fixed amount--plus upgrades, which is where they would make their money. Or instead of a voucher, you could do it with a tax credit, like the mid-1990s Heritage plan. It's not difficult. France, Germany, Switzerland, and Holland do it--and they do it four different ways.

As for the left screaming, everybody gets exactly the same thing. What could be more equal than that? In France the basic plan essentially gets you into the "free" side--government or non-profit hospitals with docs on salaries. To get into the "pay" side, you are either pout of pocket or you pay for an upgraded health insurance policy. 99+% of the French have coverage under the basic plan--and 90% buy upgrades or supplemental coverage. In a country where "free" care is universally available, a higher percentage buy private health insurance than do here. And the government spends less per capita on health care than ours does. The French have a good response for those who complain about what the "free" side provides--"It's free, what do you expect?" Basically, the free side in the French system is like a single-payer system--with all the delays and queues. That's when you step over to the "pay" side.

(08-04-2017 05:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 11:40 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 10:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because 1 and 3 are essentially the same thing.
Obamacare promised everything to everyone without any intention of actually paying for it by hiding a lot of the increases among all of the OTHER increases... and any cost-effective replacement would by definition have to cost more... which means Republicans (especially libertarians) would be raising taxes to pay for something they didn't want in the first place.
Political suicide.

How about if we can lower taxes to pay for it?
A universal basic health care package could certainly cost less than what our government spends on health care today. France does it. And their cost and standard of living certainly approximate ours. How they do it is because of what they don't cover. They cover preventive, routine, and life-saving care. The rest they leave up to the private system. We could do that.

Define universal basic healthcare package...what's actually in it...checkups and shots? Stitches and broken bones? Prosthetics? Transplants? Chemo and radiation? Latest drugs and treatments? Who provides the care? Clinics? Private docs?
Unless everything is provided to everyone equally the left will scream about the poor not having equal access to the same care as the rich.

You could start by defining it the way the French do. They've obviously made it work. Basically just give everybody a voucher for a fixed amount, and let the insurance companies design plans to fit that fixed amount--plus upgrades, which is where they would make their money. Or instead of a voucher, you could do it with a tax credit, like the mid-1990s Heritage plan. It's not difficult. France, Germany, Switzerland, and Holland do it--and they do it four different ways.

As for the left screaming, everybody gets exactly the same thing. What could be more equal than that? In France the basic plan essentially gets you into the "free" side--government or non-profit hospitals with docs on salaries. To get into the "pay" side, you are either pout of pocket or you pay for an upgraded health insurance policy. 99+% of the French have coverage under the basic plan--and 90% buy upgrades or supplemental coverage. In a country where "free" care is universally available, a higher percentage buy private health insurance than do here. And the government spends less per capita on health care than ours does. The French have a good response for those who complain about what the "free" side provides--"It's free, what do you expect?" Basically, the free side in the French system is like a single-payer system--with all the delays and queues. That's when you step over to the "pay" side.

No matter how you slice it. What we did is a failure. We have examples of systems in other countries that work better, give good care and are less costly. Only a fcking moron would install a system without FIRST looking at systems that are successful and copying as much as possible what is already being done well.

OH NO!! We ALL know exactly what happened. The ACA was boilerplate BS sitting on a shelf ready for passing at the first opportunity. Thus..we got it jammed down our throats to meet some BS 100 day goal. To have done this right would have taken some REAL effort. Don't get me wrong...I blame the GOP for this schit also. They knew this was coming for years and failed to head it off in advance with a solid workable plan. Now we have a schit sandwich that we have to take another bite of it every day until it is repealed. There is no fix. It is fundamentally flawed beyond repair. Whatever the answer?....The ACA in ANY form is not it.

(08-04-2017 06:07 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Don't get me wrong...I blame the GOP for this schit also. They knew this was coming for years and failed to head it off in advance with a solid workable plan.

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of all. Republicans know what the democrats want to do, they know that they are really the only hope for any alternative, they didn't have just 8 years, they've had 25 since Hillarycare, and they come up with ... nothing.

And it's not too hard. Look at what works best elsewhere and do it.

Democrats are evil, and republicans are too stupid to come up with anything better. Sucks to be us.

(08-04-2017 06:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 06:07 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Don't get me wrong...I blame the GOP for this schit also. They knew this was coming for years and failed to head it off in advance with a solid workable plan.

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of all. Republicans know what the democrats want to do, they know that they are really the only hope for any alternative, they didn't have just 8 years, they've had 25 since Hillarycare, and they come up with ... nothing.

And it's not too hard. Look at what works best elsewhere and do it.

Democrats are evil, and republicans are too stupid to come up with anything better. Sucks to be us.

Pretty disappointing. Ive seen better ideas on this board than either party has put forward.

(08-04-2017 07:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 06:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 06:07 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Don't get me wrong...I blame the GOP for this schit also. They knew this was coming for years and failed to head it off in advance with a solid workable plan.

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of all. Republicans know what the democrats want to do, they know that they are really the only hope for any alternative, they didn't have just 8 years, they've had 25 since Hillarycare, and they come up with ... nothing.

And it's not too hard. Look at what works best elsewhere and do it.

Democrats are evil, and republicans are too stupid to come up with anything better. Sucks to be us.

Pretty disappointing. Ive seen better ideas on this board than either party has put forward.

Not me. All I see is people coming up with different ways to be generous with my money.

(08-04-2017 07:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 07:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 06:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 06:07 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Don't get me wrong...I blame the GOP for this schit also. They knew this was coming for years and failed to head it off in advance with a solid workable plan.

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of all. Republicans know what the democrats want to do, they know that they are really the only hope for any alternative, they didn't have just 8 years, they've had 25 since Hillarycare, and they come up with ... nothing.

And it's not too hard. Look at what works best elsewhere and do it.

Democrats are evil, and republicans are too stupid to come up with anything better. Sucks to be us.

Pretty disappointing. Ive seen better ideas on this board than either party has put forward.

Not me. All I see is people coming up with different ways to be generous with my money.

c'mon now.....tort reform and eliminating interstate restrictions???

at least a few have lobbied for those two...

awwww, fk it......it's too late now anyway......