(07-04-2014 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:20 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:14 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:04 AM)Paul M Wrote:  So you're not be paying for your insurance. Someone is.

My healthcare shouldn't cost 12 grand a year. The problem is that in the oligopoly that existed under the old regime, there was no competition. And no regulation of administrative costs (of which executive compensation is one of them) so for the same medicines and healthcare I had to pay more and more each year for no incremental benefit.

And don't think that multi-state exchanges will solve any of the problems. BCBS and United would force everyone out or price fix in order to maintain 20 percent a year premium rises in the face of stagnant costs.

We tried the private system. Complete failure for everyone, including the doctors.

Besides, too many people are on Obamacare anyway. Politically, its going to be impossible to throw 10 million American off their affordable plans and tell them, sorry - no more healthcare for you, isn't going to go over well.

And telling a person with Type 1 that I'm a friggin freeloader is really low class. I already pay more. But I should have some protection for outrageous premia rises. How many Lear Jets and Manhattan mansions do I have to pay for? What medical benefit do I get from some healthcare exec's second home in the Florida Keys?

Why shouldn't it cost you 12K? You are one of the people who is a heavy user/heavy risk. Who should pay for your use of the healthcare system if not you? Or do you expect doctors and researchers to work for free?

Yea, its my fault, while I was insured, I got diabetes at age 12. The whole point of insurance is that it should provide security. Under the old plan it didn't because of ridiculous and economically unjustified premia increases.

If all of the profits from my extra payments went to DIABETES only research, with a ban on marketing from my fees, and a strict limit on any compensation to persons not directly involved in health provision/research was employed, you might have an argument.

You are such a contradiction.

You want other people to underwrite the cost of your health insurance and share the cost of caring for you.

Yet you only want your healthcare dollars to go to research for a disease that you have and fund no other research.

And liberals claim conservatives are selfish?

(07-04-2014 10:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  R&D should be funded by the government,

Where does the government funds come from?

(07-04-2014 10:14 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:13 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:07 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 09:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The GOP has offered solutions but like Zero, you have not paid attention. The totally partisan ZeroCare solution will not, cannot stand. It's doomed.

No their solution is 'more of the same' with no guarantee of affordable health care.

Under Texas' 'affordable health care system', I had to pay 9000 bucks a YEAR for my health insurance. Because I have Type 1 Diabetes. And the coverage was crap. On top of that, I'd have to pay another 3,000 on copays. 12 grand a year for healthcare. Please. And the coverage SUCKED

Under Obamacare. I have better insurance at less than half the cost.

The GOP plan. If you're sick or have a pre-existing condition, turn all of your assets over to some Medical Company CEO's lear jet fund and then the government might let you have some medicine. But no real expensive stuff, mind you.

Under every single GOP enacted health insurance initiative, access to health care and insurance has gone down, prices have gone up, and profits to health care administrators has gone up. With one exception, Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. Which of course, was the model for Obamacare.

The costs to cover you weren't reduced by Obamacare, they were just passed on to others. You can thank all of us for paying part of your insurance premiums either via our premiums going up or your receiving a subsidy.

So what do you want, a parade?

Acknowlegement that the money some are saving is on the backs of others. This is wealth redistribution pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.

You act like wealth redistribution is something unusual or something.

(07-04-2014 10:30 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:14 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:13 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:07 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  No their solution is 'more of the same' with no guarantee of affordable health care.

Under Texas' 'affordable health care system', I had to pay 9000 bucks a YEAR for my health insurance. Because I have Type 1 Diabetes. And the coverage was crap. On top of that, I'd have to pay another 3,000 on copays. 12 grand a year for healthcare. Please. And the coverage SUCKED

Under Obamacare. I have better insurance at less than half the cost.

The GOP plan. If you're sick or have a pre-existing condition, turn all of your assets over to some Medical Company CEO's lear jet fund and then the government might let you have some medicine. But no real expensive stuff, mind you.

Under every single GOP enacted health insurance initiative, access to health care and insurance has gone down, prices have gone up, and profits to health care administrators has gone up. With one exception, Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. Which of course, was the model for Obamacare.

The costs to cover you weren't reduced by Obamacare, they were just passed on to others. You can thank all of us for paying part of your insurance premiums either via our premiums going up or your receiving a subsidy.

So what do you want, a parade?

Acknowlegement that the money some are saving is on the backs of others. This is wealth redistribution pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.

You act like wealth redistribution is something unusual or something.

Wealth redistribution by the government is historically fairly new.
I think Karl Marx was a pretty big advocate of it. Fidel Castro too.

At least you are willing acknowledge Obamacare for what it is: a massive wealth redistribution program disguised as healthcare.

(07-04-2014 10:30 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  R&D should be funded by the government,

Where does the government funds come from?

From those able to pay. Taxes, in our current progressive system are largely (hedge fund managers excepted) means based. It makes sense to do it that way.

Get rid of the subsidies to Wall Streeters that have no interest in science/healthcare. Get rid of our subsidies to Europe and Canada in R&D. Get rid of the shackle of health costs to our employers.

Single Payer.

(07-04-2014 10:30 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  R&D should be funded by the government,

Where does the government funds come from?

They print money at the treasury and then they take the cash and drop it off over at Big Pharma.

(07-04-2014 10:29 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:20 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:14 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:04 AM)Paul M Wrote:  So you're not be paying for your insurance. Someone is.

My healthcare shouldn't cost 12 grand a year. The problem is that in the oligopoly that existed under the old regime, there was no competition. And no regulation of administrative costs (of which executive compensation is one of them) so for the same medicines and healthcare I had to pay more and more each year for no incremental benefit.

And don't think that multi-state exchanges will solve any of the problems. BCBS and United would force everyone out or price fix in order to maintain 20 percent a year premium rises in the face of stagnant costs.

We tried the private system. Complete failure for everyone, including the doctors.

Besides, too many people are on Obamacare anyway. Politically, its going to be impossible to throw 10 million American off their affordable plans and tell them, sorry - no more healthcare for you, isn't going to go over well.

And telling a person with Type 1 that I'm a friggin freeloader is really low class. I already pay more. But I should have some protection for outrageous premia rises. How many Lear Jets and Manhattan mansions do I have to pay for? What medical benefit do I get from some healthcare exec's second home in the Florida Keys?

Why shouldn't it cost you 12K? You are one of the people who is a heavy user/heavy risk. Who should pay for your use of the healthcare system if not you? Or do you expect doctors and researchers to work for free?

Yea, its my fault, while I was insured, I got diabetes at age 12. The whole point of insurance is that it should provide security. Under the old plan it didn't because of ridiculous and economically unjustified premia increases.

If all of the profits from my extra payments went to DIABETES only research, with a ban on marketing from my fees, and a strict limit on any compensation to persons not directly involved in health provision/research was employed, you might have an argument.

You are such a contradiction.

You want other people to underwrite the cost of your health insurance and share the cost of caring for you.

Yet you only want your healthcare dollars to go to research for a disease that you have and fund no other research.

And liberals claim conservatives are selfish?

I argue that since I'm not using any really different drugs that my health care costs shouldn't have increased 300 percent in the last 10 years. I argue that I shouldn't have had to pay that increase because there's no evidence that the 'cost' of my healthcare has increased. I don't see the 5000 a year I spend on Obamacare to be someone subsidizing me, but rather an end to the extortionate overcharging I was subjected to in the old regime. And then there's the whole issue of the fact that I've been insured for the 30 years I've had diabetes. Why should insurance companies receive a risk premium when there's really no risk to them (as they could just increase premiums to ridiculous levels if anyone actually gets a disease)?

You guys won't address that.

I'm willing to pay a reasonable cost. I'm even willing to pay a subsidy so long as that subsidy is actually used to provide health care, at its cost plus a reasonable rate of return, for others not able to pay for the COST (which means cost of production - not production plus lear jet) of their health care. I don't think I need to be paying extra for someone to buy a second home that is uninvolved in my health care. Or for Germans or Canadians to use the benefits derived from my extra payments at 20 percent of what I'm paying. But if I need to pay extra to cover others, then everyone able to do should be doing so as well so that we actually end the issue of unaffordable health care. I'm even willing to fund R&D for other diseases so long as part of the deal, we all get a lifetime guarantee of healthcare affordability based upon a burden all Americans share. A burden, that if lifted, would represent a huge gain to the American economy which is harmed by the outrageous higher cost that Americans pay for healthcare as well as the drag of having a large percentage of the population outside the healthcare net.

Obamacare starts to resolve that issue. Single Payer with a redo of our pharma laws would go a lot further.

Why is it Liberals feel that handing over their lives to gov't bureaucrats equals infinite resources? It's delusional. It's insanity. Are you blind to the VA scandal.

(07-04-2014 10:30 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:14 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:13 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:07 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  No their solution is 'more of the same' with no guarantee of affordable health care.

Under Texas' 'affordable health care system', I had to pay 9000 bucks a YEAR for my health insurance. Because I have Type 1 Diabetes. And the coverage was crap. On top of that, I'd have to pay another 3,000 on copays. 12 grand a year for healthcare. Please. And the coverage SUCKED

Under Obamacare. I have better insurance at less than half the cost.

The GOP plan. If you're sick or have a pre-existing condition, turn all of your assets over to some Medical Company CEO's lear jet fund and then the government might let you have some medicine. But no real expensive stuff, mind you.

Under every single GOP enacted health insurance initiative, access to health care and insurance has gone down, prices have gone up, and profits to health care administrators has gone up. With one exception, Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. Which of course, was the model for Obamacare.

The costs to cover you weren't reduced by Obamacare, they were just passed on to others. You can thank all of us for paying part of your insurance premiums either via our premiums going up or your receiving a subsidy.

So what do you want, a parade?

Acknowlegement that the money some are saving is on the backs of others. This is wealth redistribution pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.

You act like wealth redistribution is something unusual or something.

Under the GOP plan we had wealth redistribution too. From the poorer to the richer. And what about my subsidy to the doctors in the form of my taxdollars paying for their medical school buildings, their student loan subsidies, and their hospitals? Lets get real. If you'd like to talk about wealth distribution, lets really focus on subsidies to the health care professionals too. I'm okay the taxpayers paying to have doctors, but only if those doctors are actually going to serve the public

(07-04-2014 10:52 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Why is it Liberals feel that handing over their lives to gov't bureaucrats equals infinite resources? It's delusional. It's insanity. Are you blind to the VA scandal.

Obamacare is working. I don't know anyone on it that has anything bad to say about it.

(07-04-2014 10:57 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:30 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:14 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:13 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:07 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The costs to cover you weren't reduced by Obamacare, they were just passed on to others. You can thank all of us for paying part of your insurance premiums either via our premiums going up or your receiving a subsidy.

So what do you want, a parade?

Acknowlegement that the money some are saving is on the backs of others. This is wealth redistribution pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.

You act like wealth redistribution is something unusual or something.

Under the GOP plan we had wealth redistribution too. From the poorer to the richer.

Everyone should be taxed at the same rate. And poor people get lots of free stuff that wealthier people pay for. The poor don't subsidize others, wealthier people do subsidize poorer people. The government encourages people to be poorer, more so the government rewards people for bad choices.

(07-04-2014 10:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:52 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Why is it Liberals feel that handing over their lives to gov't bureaucrats equals infinite resources? It's delusional. It's insanity. Are you blind to the VA scandal.

Obamacare is working. I don't know anyone on it that has anything bad to say about it.

The veterans dying at the VA says otherwise.

(07-04-2014 10:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:52 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Why is it Liberals feel that handing over their lives to gov't bureaucrats equals infinite resources? It's delusional. It's insanity. Are you blind to the VA scandal.

Obamacare is working. I don't know anyone on it that has anything bad to say about it.

Obamacare is working. So was the healthcare for millions before ZeroCare and working better. Time is working against you.

Like I said ... you are delusional and blind and insane.

You must hang with a lot of seedy people,

(07-04-2014 11:11 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:52 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Why is it Liberals feel that handing over their lives to gov't bureaucrats equals infinite resources? It's delusional. It's insanity. Are you blind to the VA scandal.

Obamacare is working. I don't know anyone on it that has anything bad to say about it.

The veterans dying at the VA says otherwise.

Oh really Tom? I am sure you personally know millions of people.

The cost of insurance policies have skyrocketed and the choices of physicians have declined.

(07-04-2014 10:41 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:29 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:20 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:14 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  My healthcare shouldn't cost 12 grand a year. The problem is that in the oligopoly that existed under the old regime, there was no competition. And no regulation of administrative costs (of which executive compensation is one of them) so for the same medicines and healthcare I had to pay more and more each year for no incremental benefit.

And don't think that multi-state exchanges will solve any of the problems. BCBS and United would force everyone out or price fix in order to maintain 20 percent a year premium rises in the face of stagnant costs.

We tried the private system. Complete failure for everyone, including the doctors.

Besides, too many people are on Obamacare anyway. Politically, its going to be impossible to throw 10 million American off their affordable plans and tell them, sorry - no more healthcare for you, isn't going to go over well.

And telling a person with Type 1 that I'm a friggin freeloader is really low class. I already pay more. But I should have some protection for outrageous premia rises. How many Lear Jets and Manhattan mansions do I have to pay for? What medical benefit do I get from some healthcare exec's second home in the Florida Keys?

Why shouldn't it cost you 12K? You are one of the people who is a heavy user/heavy risk. Who should pay for your use of the healthcare system if not you? Or do you expect doctors and researchers to work for free?

Yea, its my fault, while I was insured, I got diabetes at age 12. The whole point of insurance is that it should provide security. Under the old plan it didn't because of ridiculous and economically unjustified premia increases.

If all of the profits from my extra payments went to DIABETES only research, with a ban on marketing from my fees, and a strict limit on any compensation to persons not directly involved in health provision/research was employed, you might have an argument.

You are such a contradiction.

You want other people to underwrite the cost of your health insurance and share the cost of caring for you.

Yet you only want your healthcare dollars to go to research for a disease that you have and fund no other research.

And liberals claim conservatives are selfish?

I argue that since I'm not using any really different drugs that my health care costs shouldn't have increased 300 percent in the last 10 years. I argue that I shouldn't have had to pay that increase because there's no evidence that the 'cost' of my healthcare has increased. I don't see the 5000 a year I spend on Obamacare to be someone subsidizing me, but rather an end to the extortionate overcharging I was subjected to in the old regime. And then there's the whole issue of the fact that I've been insured for the 30 years I've had diabetes. Why should insurance companies receive a risk premium when there's really no risk to them (as they could just increase premiums to ridiculous levels if anyone actually gets a disease)?

You guys won't address that.

I'm willing to pay a reasonable cost. I'm even willing to pay a subsidy so long as that subsidy is actually used to provide health care, at its cost plus a reasonable rate of return, for others not able to pay for the COST (which means cost of production - not production plus lear jet) of their health care. I don't think I need to be paying extra for someone to buy a second home that is uninvolved in my health care. Or for Germans or Canadians to use the benefits derived from my extra payments at 20 percent of what I'm paying. But if I need to pay extra to cover others, then everyone able to do should be doing so as well so that we actually end the issue of unaffordable health care. I'm even willing to fund R&D for other diseases so long as part of the deal, we all get a lifetime guarantee of healthcare affordability based upon a burden all Americans share. A burden, that if lifted, would represent a huge gain to the American economy which is harmed by the outrageous higher cost that Americans pay for healthcare as well as the drag of having a large percentage of the population outside the healthcare net.

Obamacare starts to resolve that issue. Single Payer with a redo of our pharma laws would go a lot further.

So you quibble with the language of subsidy. Ok then lets use your words.

You were over paying before. Part of that overpayment was covering others short fall. Now you are under paying. Others are paying your short fall.

There's a word that describes what you've experienced.

The Lear jet you keep repeating is a canard. Government doesn't have their own massive fleet? Same for the second home. Bureaucrats don't live in the most expensive district in the country?

(07-04-2014 10:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:52 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Why is it Liberals feel that handing over their lives to gov't bureaucrats equals infinite resources? It's delusional. It's insanity. Are you blind to the VA scandal.

Obamacare is working. I don't know anyone on it that has anything bad to say about it.

You haven't answered my questions from post #34.

Quote:Single Payer.

Give it up; it's never going to happen.

There are three very practical reasons:
1. the Dems will (almost assuredly) never again have the WH, 60 vote Senate and House that would be necessary to pass single payer.
2. The unions, in particular the public sector unions, who carried the water for the Dems on Obamacare, wouldn't go along because they'd lose their Cadillac plans.
3. The folks will see the damage Obamacare will do to the system and see what a total waste the VA System is, and will never support the change. I'm sure everyone in the country wants a health plan run by a bunch of incompetent "civil servants" who can't be fired no matter how badly they fvck up. Most everyone realizes that letting companies who can make a profit run health insurance, is more likely to provide cost efficient and effective health care. The free market always produces better outcomes than anything government can accomplish.

(07-04-2014 12:30 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

Quote:Single Payer.

Give it up; it's never going to happen.

There are three very practical reasons:
1. the Dems will (almost assuredly) never again have the WH, 60 vote Senate and House that would be necessary to pass single payer.
2. The unions, in particular the public sector unions, who carried the water for the Dems on Obamacare, wouldn't go along because they'd lose their Cadillac plans.
3. The folks will see the damage Obamacare will do to the system and see what a total waste the VA System is, and will never support the change. I'm sure everyone in the country wants a health plan run by a bunch of incompetent "civil servants" who can't be fired no matter how badly they fvck up. Most everyone realizes that letting companies who can make a profit run health insurance, is more likely to provide cost efficient and effective health care. The free market always produces better outcomes than anything government can accomplish.

With a VA that can't schedule visits in a timely manner and covered it up to an IRS that targets certain parties and then oops loses emails that were likely incriminating, the American public is seeing firsthand the incompetence of the government that wants to run their healthcare.

Other than the true believers nobody wants single payer government run healthcare now that the curtain has been pulled back.

Nobody with a clue wants an actual single payer system. Most people use the term to mean government run healthcare but not necessarily a true single payer system. The single payer model is regarded by everybody, even many on the left, as the single worst option. Many in Europe do not even have a true single payer system because it sucks so bad.