(10-14-2016 03:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 03:02 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 03:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:58 PM)EagleX Wrote:  many of those will die for lack of health insurance, and their blood will be on the hands of barack obama. he is sacrificing the lives of those very people that his law was purported to help, so that the law may live on. his law, and, thus, his legacy, is more important to him that the lives of the americans he "claimed" to be helping.


all for the sake of the ego of a single wretched little man.

You realize that more people have health insurance now than at any time in this country. Right?

your reply is non-responsive to my comment.

I just find it odd that you would blame Obama for those who lack health insurance when in fact, his law has provide health insurance for millions who didn't have it before. In fact, his law requires citizens to have it for face a penalty.

I find it odd that you refuse to read the title of the thread.

eagle,

Just curious - have you ever had an idea that you thought was really good, were sure would work, and then ended up not working out?

(10-14-2016 04:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  eagle,

Just curious - have you ever had an idea that you thought was really good, were sure would work, and then ended up not working out?

Oh, please. His idea FROM THE START was single-payer government run healthcare. AHA was designed TO FAIL.

(10-14-2016 04:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  eagle,

Just curious - have you ever had an idea that you thought was really good, were sure would work, and then ended up not working out?

that's not a fair comparison.

A fair comparison would be this: Have you ever had an idea or thought that was already proven to be a bad idea based upon others putting something similar into production, and you had to lie to the people to allow you to implement it, and forced it into reality even when millions of people were showing you hard evidence of what a cluster**** it would be?

The problem with pre-existing conditions is that some people will not take insurance when they are young and healthy. They pay the fine (tax). Then when they get sick, they want their entitled insurance. After they get well, they drop the insurance and pay the fine(tax).

Just can't work that way.

QS,

If we penalize them the same amount that it costs to get insurance, that should make the decision easy for them.

(10-14-2016 06:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  QS,

If we penalize them the same amount that it costs to get insurance, that should make the decision easy for them.

Now its a penalty..in other words...a crime. I thought it was a tax. Which is it?

What needs to happen.

Scrap the ACA but keep the individual mandate.
Put everyone that cant afford insurance on single pay...nationwide. Cut a bunch of schitty government programs to pay for it..since it is so important.
Open the private marketplace across state lines and leave those of us that can afford insurance the fck alone.

(10-14-2016 03:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 02:58 PM)EagleX Wrote:  many of those will die for lack of health insurance, and their blood will be on the hands of barack obama. he is sacrificing the lives of those very people that his law was purported to help, so that the law may live on. his law, and, thus, his legacy, is more important to him that the lives of the americans he "claimed" to be helping.


all for the sake of the ego of a single wretched little man.

You realize that more people have health insurance now than at any time in this country. Right?

How much per did it cost to accomplish that?

sent from Samsung Galaxy Note 7

(10-14-2016 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You are right.

We should just go back to the good ol days when insurance companies could deny coverage.

Um, yes. We should. That's what made it insurance.

(10-14-2016 06:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 06:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  QS,
If we penalize them the same amount that it costs to get insurance, that should make the decision easy for them.

Now its a penalty..in other words...a crime. I thought it was a tax. Which is it?
What needs to happen.
Scrap the ACA but keep the individual mandate.
Put everyone that cant afford insurance on single pay...nationwide. Cut a bunch of schitty government programs to pay for it..since it is so important.
Open the private marketplace across state lines and leave those of us that can afford insurance the fck alone.

In other words, Bismarck.

(10-15-2016 05:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 06:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 06:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  QS,
If we penalize them the same amount that it costs to get insurance, that should make the decision easy for them.

Now its a penalty..in other words...a crime. I thought it was a tax. Which is it?
What needs to happen.
Scrap the ACA but keep the individual mandate.
Put everyone that cant afford insurance on single pay...nationwide. Cut a bunch of schitty government programs to pay for it..since it is so important.
Open the private marketplace across state lines and leave those of us that can afford insurance the fck alone.

In other words, Bismarck.

Exactly. It is the only system that will work for a population as culturally, economically diverse and large as America if your goal is to have 100% coverage for everyone.

(10-15-2016 07:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 05:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 06:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 06:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  QS,
If we penalize them the same amount that it costs to get insurance, that should make the decision easy for them.

Now its a penalty..in other words...a crime. I thought it was a tax. Which is it?
What needs to happen.
Scrap the ACA but keep the individual mandate.
Put everyone that cant afford insurance on single pay...nationwide. Cut a bunch of schitty government programs to pay for it..since it is so important.
Open the private marketplace across state lines and leave those of us that can afford insurance the fck alone.

In other words, Bismarck.

Exactly. It is the only system that will work for a population as culturally, economically diverse and large as America if your goal is to have 100% coverage for everyone.

A Bismark hybrid would work here as it provides basic care but there would still be people complaining because the poor can not afford the additional supplemental coverage that a Bismark program requires to provide better access and care.

They think everyone should have access to every treatment and drug regardless of their ability to pay which is absurd given the cost of some treatments and drugs. If you can't pay you are entitled to basic healthcare like a Bismark program provides.

They would point to Sweden or Canada and say we need single payer universal healthcare! Newsflash!…In Sweden the wealthy still have better access and care because they can pay for it.

Not to mention the rationing and wait times in countries with socialized care. A friend of ours who lives in Sweden had a daughter who broke her arm in two places and they waited 8 hours at the NHS ER to be treated. Yes she did get care which is great but waited 8 hours!

(10-15-2016 09:29 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 07:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 05:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 06:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 06:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  QS,
If we penalize them the same amount that it costs to get insurance, that should make the decision easy for them.

Now its a penalty..in other words...a crime. I thought it was a tax. Which is it?
What needs to happen.
Scrap the ACA but keep the individual mandate.
Put everyone that cant afford insurance on single pay...nationwide. Cut a bunch of schitty government programs to pay for it..since it is so important.
Open the private marketplace across state lines and leave those of us that can afford insurance the fck alone.

In other words, Bismarck.

Exactly. It is the only system that will work for a population as culturally, economically diverse and large as America if your goal is to have 100% coverage for everyone.

A Bismark hybrid would work here as it provides basic care but there would still be people complaining because the poor can not afford the additional supplemental coverage that a Bismark program requires to provide better access and care.

They think everyone should have access to every treatment and drug regardless of their ability to pay which is absurd given the cost of some treatments and drugs. If you can't pay you are entitled to basic healthcare like a Bismark program provides.

They would point to Sweden or Canada and say we need single payer universal healthcare! Newsflash!…In Sweden the wealthy still have better access and care because they can pay for it.

Not to mention the rationing and wait times in countries with socialized care. A friend of ours who lives in Sweden had a daughter who broke her arm in two places and they waited 8 hours at the NHS ER to be treated. Yes she did get care which is great but waited 8 hours!

8 hours is actually about normal for those types of setups.

In canada, if you need a CT scan or or ultrasound, you will be waiting 4 weeks. Need an MRI? 8 weeks. Need a orthopaedic surgery? 35 weeks.

And here's an article from Sweden about their healthcare system being an embarrassment. Keep in mind that when they talk about their rankings slipping (dropping to a ranking of 12) that thats only within the EU. Not worldwide.
https://www.thelocal.se/20150127/swedens...he-country

And they write that their child cancer care is "1800's". The below article describes the severe shortage of child oncologists in the country, and the fact that a chunk of them are set to retire.
https://www.thelocal.se/20141125/sweden-...al-ranking

I know 8 hours to be seen for a broken arm is normal for socialized medicine. Americans would complain if they had to wait that long but that type of system is what many are asking for.

(10-15-2016 11:39 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  I know 8 hours to be seen for a broken arm is normal for socialized medicine. Americans would complain if they had to wait that long but that type of system is what many are asking for.

I broke my leg as a child in one of the 'better' socialized systems.

People who want a single payer have never experienced it.

They are ignorant of the reality, and that is without exception.

(10-15-2016 09:29 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 07:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 05:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 06:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 06:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  QS,
If we penalize them the same amount that it costs to get insurance, that should make the decision easy for them.

Now its a penalty..in other words...a crime. I thought it was a tax. Which is it?
What needs to happen.
Scrap the ACA but keep the individual mandate.
Put everyone that cant afford insurance on single pay...nationwide. Cut a bunch of schitty government programs to pay for it..since it is so important.
Open the private marketplace across state lines and leave those of us that can afford insurance the fck alone.

In other words, Bismarck.

Exactly. It is the only system that will work for a population as culturally, economically diverse and large as America if your goal is to have 100% coverage for everyone.

A Bismark hybrid would work here as it provides basic care but there would still be people complaining because the poor can not afford the additional supplemental coverage that a Bismark program requires to provide better access and care.

They think everyone should have access to every treatment and drug regardless of their ability to pay which is absurd given the cost of some treatments and drugs. If you can't pay you are entitled to basic healthcare like a Bismark program provides.

They would point to Sweden or Canada and say we need single payer universal healthcare! Newsflash!…In Sweden the wealthy still have better access and care because they can pay for it.

Not to mention the rationing and wait times in countries with socialized care. A friend of ours who lives in Sweden had a daughter who broke her arm in two places and they waited 8 hours at the NHS ER to be treated. Yes she did get care which is great but waited 8 hours!

Im talking more about a national medicaid program for those less fortunate. Maybe set up on some type of sliding scale premium depending upon income.

(10-15-2016 12:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 09:29 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 07:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 05:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 06:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Now its a penalty..in other words...a crime. I thought it was a tax. Which is it?
What needs to happen.
Scrap the ACA but keep the individual mandate.
Put everyone that cant afford insurance on single pay...nationwide. Cut a bunch of schitty government programs to pay for it..since it is so important.
Open the private marketplace across state lines and leave those of us that can afford insurance the fck alone.

In other words, Bismarck.

Exactly. It is the only system that will work for a population as culturally, economically diverse and large as America if your goal is to have 100% coverage for everyone.

A Bismark hybrid would work here as it provides basic care but there would still be people complaining because the poor can not afford the additional supplemental coverage that a Bismark program requires to provide better access and care.

They think everyone should have access to every treatment and drug regardless of their ability to pay which is absurd given the cost of some treatments and drugs. If you can't pay you are entitled to basic healthcare like a Bismark program provides.

They would point to Sweden or Canada and say we need single payer universal healthcare! Newsflash!…In Sweden the wealthy still have better access and care because they can pay for it.

Not to mention the rationing and wait times in countries with socialized care. A friend of ours who lives in Sweden had a daughter who broke her arm in two places and they waited 8 hours at the NHS ER to be treated. Yes she did get care which is great but waited 8 hours!

Im talking more about a national medicaid program for those less fortunate. Maybe set up on some type of sliding scale premium depending upon income.

Medicaid already exists for the poor and has trouble finding providers who will accept their reimbursement rate. Expand it on a sliding scale and you have even more people who can't find providers. Would you mandate providers accept Medicaid's level of payment (forced charity?)

Will those on this expanded Medicaid be happy with a very limited list of providers? People already complain about where they can get treated with their Obamacare plans.

They also complain about what treatments they are covered for. How do you decide what treatments those on government subsidized plans are entitled to?

(10-15-2016 12:25 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 12:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 09:29 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 07:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 05:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In other words, Bismarck.

Exactly. It is the only system that will work for a population as culturally, economically diverse and large as America if your goal is to have 100% coverage for everyone.

A Bismark hybrid would work here as it provides basic care but there would still be people complaining because the poor can not afford the additional supplemental coverage that a Bismark program requires to provide better access and care.

They think everyone should have access to every treatment and drug regardless of their ability to pay which is absurd given the cost of some treatments and drugs. If you can't pay you are entitled to basic healthcare like a Bismark program provides.

They would point to Sweden or Canada and say we need single payer universal healthcare! Newsflash!…In Sweden the wealthy still have better access and care because they can pay for it.

Not to mention the rationing and wait times in countries with socialized care. A friend of ours who lives in Sweden had a daughter who broke her arm in two places and they waited 8 hours at the NHS ER to be treated. Yes she did get care which is great but waited 8 hours!

Im talking more about a national medicaid program for those less fortunate. Maybe set up on some type of sliding scale premium depending upon income.

Medicaid already exists for the poor and has trouble finding providers who will accept their reimbursement rate. Expand it on a sliding scale and you have even more people who can't find providers. Would you mandate providers accept Medicaid's level of payment (forced charity?)

Will those on this expanded Medicaid be happy with a very limited list of providers? People already complain about where they can get treated with their Obamacare plans.

They also complain about what treatments they are covered for. How do you decide what treatments those on government subsidized plans are entitled to?

Im also talking about spending a damn ton of money. It will not be cheap. It do it right will take a national commitment of resources and decisions about other programs and their importance would have to be made. The money will have to come deep cuts in programs that give us a poor ROI. There are plenty of them that fit that description.

(10-15-2016 12:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 12:25 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 12:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 09:29 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 07:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Exactly. It is the only system that will work for a population as culturally, economically diverse and large as America if your goal is to have 100% coverage for everyone.

A Bismark hybrid would work here as it provides basic care but there would still be people complaining because the poor can not afford the additional supplemental coverage that a Bismark program requires to provide better access and care.

They think everyone should have access to every treatment and drug regardless of their ability to pay which is absurd given the cost of some treatments and drugs. If you can't pay you are entitled to basic healthcare like a Bismark program provides.

They would point to Sweden or Canada and say we need single payer universal healthcare! Newsflash!…In Sweden the wealthy still have better access and care because they can pay for it.

Not to mention the rationing and wait times in countries with socialized care. A friend of ours who lives in Sweden had a daughter who broke her arm in two places and they waited 8 hours at the NHS ER to be treated. Yes she did get care which is great but waited 8 hours!

Im talking more about a national medicaid program for those less fortunate. Maybe set up on some type of sliding scale premium depending upon income.

Medicaid already exists for the poor and has trouble finding providers who will accept their reimbursement rate. Expand it on a sliding scale and you have even more people who can't find providers. Would you mandate providers accept Medicaid's level of payment (forced charity?)

Will those on this expanded Medicaid be happy with a very limited list of providers? People already complain about where they can get treated with their Obamacare plans.

They also complain about what treatments they are covered for. How do you decide what treatments those on government subsidized plans are entitled to?

Im also talking about spending a damn ton of money. It will not be cheap. It do it right will take a national commitment of resources and decisions about other programs and their importance would have to be made. The money will have to come deep cuts in programs that give us a poor ROI. There are plenty of them that fit that description.

What politician will agree to cutting pork they are bringing to their own backyard? We also talk about cuts to pay for new spending but the cuts never happen or don't happen deeply enough to offset the new expenditures. Hence the 19 trillion deficit.

(10-15-2016 12:40 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 12:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 12:25 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 12:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2016 09:29 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  A Bismark hybrid would work here as it provides basic care but there would still be people complaining because the poor can not afford the additional supplemental coverage that a Bismark program requires to provide better access and care.

They think everyone should have access to every treatment and drug regardless of their ability to pay which is absurd given the cost of some treatments and drugs. If you can't pay you are entitled to basic healthcare like a Bismark program provides.

They would point to Sweden or Canada and say we need single payer universal healthcare! Newsflash!…In Sweden the wealthy still have better access and care because they can pay for it.

Not to mention the rationing and wait times in countries with socialized care. A friend of ours who lives in Sweden had a daughter who broke her arm in two places and they waited 8 hours at the NHS ER to be treated. Yes she did get care which is great but waited 8 hours!

Im talking more about a national medicaid program for those less fortunate. Maybe set up on some type of sliding scale premium depending upon income.

Medicaid already exists for the poor and has trouble finding providers who will accept their reimbursement rate. Expand it on a sliding scale and you have even more people who can't find providers. Would you mandate providers accept Medicaid's level of payment (forced charity?)

Will those on this expanded Medicaid be happy with a very limited list of providers? People already complain about where they can get treated with their Obamacare plans.

They also complain about what treatments they are covered for. How do you decide what treatments those on government subsidized plans are entitled to?

Im also talking about spending a damn ton of money. It will not be cheap. It do it right will take a national commitment of resources and decisions about other programs and their importance would have to be made. The money will have to come deep cuts in programs that give us a poor ROI. There are plenty of them that fit that description.

What politician will agree to cutting pork they are bringing to their own backyard? We also talk about cuts to pay for new spending but the cuts never happen or don't happen deeply enough to offset the new expenditures. Hence the 19 trillion deficit.

I agree. It would indeed take a national commitment. Many like myself are ready for such a commitment. Im tired of this topic and Im tired of the constant increases in my premiums. My wife and I are now closing in on 19 grand a year of outlay for health insurance. It must stop. Lets get this done right this time.