(10-22-2016 10:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But its just easier to put us all on medicare. I'll pay 10 grand more in taxes to not have to deal with it anymore.

You do know that over half of all "Medicare" payments are made by private insurance companies.

(10-21-2016 10:14 PM)Claw Wrote:  The answer is removing humans from the diagnostic phase. Doctors and nurses are going to become data collectors and observers. Diagnosis is going to move to computer intelligence. A few doctors anywhere in the world will specialize in certain things and the patients will be seen remotely. Surgeries will be performed by robots.

You do these things and the labor costs of medicine will plummet. The quality of diagnosis will improve. Availability goes essentially global.

This is the way forward. Getting people to trust it is the challenge.

I'll respond to this in full but you are heading in the right direction with some of your post. Other parts need some adjusting.

I'm in this side of healthcare now and very in tune with how things are changing and alternatives to traditional methods that will help everyone.




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

On a side note I'll be paying 150 per month for a consumer driven family health plan. I'll max out HSA, I'll max out FSA, pay 2 bucks per for vision and 4 bucks per for dental.

3k deductible and 5k max out of pocket.

I work for a health system so I an say I have good insurance and help the health plan with tools to make this happen.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

if the ACA was all part of a plan to intentionally break our health care system so we could be pushed involuntarily into something that we wouldn't have otherwise chosen for ourselves, then the logic is undeniable: the democrats have killed thousands, perhaps tens or even hundreds of thousands, of americans so that they could achieve some arbitrary doctrinaire policy goal.

there is much blood on their hands.

personally, I don't give them that much credit. I think they ****** it all up by accident. still sucks to be the dead people that their ignorance created.

(10-21-2016 09:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So what is the answer. I see on my Facebook feed people complaining about their premiums going up. Do we supplement that somehow? I would like a VAT tax or some other form of a national sales tax that pays for ALL of our basic health care. Heck I would go hybrid OR is a national sale tax good for that top 10%? That's an idea. The govt pays for catastrophic health events? The system we had before was broken and I would advocate for a national health care system at a basic level. I'm all ears. My wife would be an excellent resource here because she's now in the medical field and she's nowhere near as positive about Obamacare as she was before. I'll wake her WHAT she thinks should happen.

Damn, Mach!

Who's the "government"? Who's paying? It may not be you, or you, or you, but it sure as **** isn't the "government".

C'mon, man. Damn

(10-22-2016 12:24 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-22-2016 10:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But its just easier to put us all on medicare. I'll pay 10 grand more in taxes to not have to deal with it anymore.

You do know that over half of all "Medicare" payments are made by private insurance companies.

And that Medicare denies claims twice as often as private insurance and you'll be at the whim of the government for what is and isn't covered.

(10-22-2016 09:46 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  JMU

You can "live" without a car. Health care is different in my opinion and I would advocate for universal basic coverage. People under the age of 19 get FULZl universal coverage if I had my druthers.

(10-22-2016 10:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But its just easier to put us all on medicare. I'll pay 10 grand more in taxes to not have to deal with it anymore.

The healthcare of neither of you nor anyone else outside of my immediate family is not my financial responsibility. My hard earned money should be stolen from me by the government to pay for it.

You guys are missing the point of the national sales tax and Kaplony you are one crisis away from a catastrophe. These situations know no class and yes they would bankrupt anybody outside of the top 1% in time. You can advocate for position but it would change if you had a loved one whose care just ran up against a lifetime cap. You could maybe round up 30% of the population with the "health care is not my responsibility outside of my family" routine. It was a failing system. I always argued that it was the people who had insurance with sick loved ones who were holding up the system before. It would be just incredibly naive to think your 8,000 dollar a day neo natal intensive care room wasn't subsidizing another family who couldn't pay their bills. It was an unjust system before.

(10-23-2016 01:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You guys are missing the point of the national sales tax and Kaplony you are one crisis away from a catastrophe. These situations know no class and yes they would bankrupt anybody outside of the top 1% in time. You can advocate for position but it would change if you had a loved one whose care just ran up against a lifetime cap. You could maybe round up 30% of the population with the "health care is not my responsibility outside of my family" routine. It was a failing system. I always argued that it was the people who had insurance with sick loved ones who were holding up the system before. It would be just incredibly naive to think your 8,000 dollar a day neo natal intensive care room wasn't subsidizing another family who couldn't pay their bills. It was an unjust system before.

The difference between me and you is the fact that I am fine with that and will meet my obligations if and when they occur because I am a responsible adult. You want other people to meet your obligations because you are irresponsible.

Ohhhhhhh. Gawd......

Is cancer irresponsible? We could have a nice discussion about this if you so chose. My opinion is people who get sick or loved ones that get sick is just unfortunate fate. I'm glad as a society we have chosen to look out for those less fortunate. All of us are just one unfortunate diagnosis away.

Like I said, I am fine with being responsible for my own debts and don't expect anyone else to pay for it. You aren't responsible and expect others to pay your debts.

Was the system set up before fair? We're the ones who were sick supplementing those that could not afford care? So what you are saying didn't exist before or never existed. It's like arguing with 8th grade logic. You were never responsible for your own debts. You just never were in the system. Don't get sick is not a health care policy.

Since I graduated college and went to work I have paid for my own healthcare. I have never needed anyone else's tax money to pay for it, and I have absolutely no desire to take anyone's tax money to pay for any future expenses. The reason I started a savings account when I was 16 and put money in it every single paycheck since is so that I have money available to pay for unexpected expenses. Perhaps if more people would do that instead of blowing through their money like there is no tomorrow we wouldn't be having this discussion about your desire to take my money to pay for your healthcare.

There's a reason why I didn't medically retire and take the disability route like was suggested by both my personal and departmental doctor and instead used the option of buying out the needed service time to make my 25 years and retiring like I did. I don't expect the taxpayers to pay my way the rest of my life and we take care of our own around here. Just like we took care of my Grandparent's medical bills as a family without stealing from the taxpayers any need I'll have will be taken care of by family.

Next thing you know you'll be expecting me and other taxpayers to make your house payment and buy your groceries.

Very interesting viewpoint. What do we do with people who can not afford food? Why? So what you are saying we might start doing, we already do. We already make housing payments for those less fortunate too. I say the only difference between food stamps, Section 8 housing and medical care is that everyone needs to be fed and needs shelter daily not everyone needs daily medical care, but for those that do our government should provide help for those less fortunate. You advocate for your position as I will mine. Should we have people dying in the streets? Should we let people starve?

What is the difference between someone in need of food stamps vs. someone needing chemo therapy?

Does society benefit from people not starving?

(10-23-2016 04:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Very interesting viewpoint. What do we do with people who can not afford food? Why? So what you are saying we might start doing, we already do. We already make housing payments for those less fortunate too. I say the only difference between food stamps, Section 8 housing and medical care is that everyone needs to be fed and needs shelter daily not everyone needs daily medical care, but for those that do our government should provide help for those less fortunate. You advocate for your position as I will mine. Should we have people dying in the streets? Should we let people starve?

What is the difference between someone in need of food stamps vs. someone needing chemo therapy?

Does society benefit from people not starving?

Private charity, like things used to be done. My small town Alabama hospital has a foundation for such things.

(10-23-2016 04:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Very interesting viewpoint. What do we do with people who can not afford food? Why? So what you are saying we might start doing, we already do. We already make housing payments for those less fortunate too. I say the only difference between food stamps, Section 8 housing and medical care is that everyone needs to be fed and needs shelter daily not everyone needs daily medical care, but for those that do our government should provide help for those less fortunate. You advocate for your position as I will mine. Should we have people dying in the streets? Should we let people starve?

What is the difference between someone in need of food stamps vs. someone needing chemo therapy?

Does society benefit from people not starving?

My opinion on government provided housing, food, etc. is this: If you are at a point where you require government assistance to eat then you get food provided to you from a government warehouse. If you are at a point where you need government assistance to have a place to stay then you live in government owned barracks. If you need government assistance for healthcare then you go to the VA and get government provided healthcare. It used to be where if you needed government assistance there was a stigma attached and we didn't have anywhere near as much dependence on the government, and when people got it they did their damnedest to get off of it as soon as possible. Funny thing was you also didn't have mass starvation, etc like the doomsday scenarios you leftist idiots like to portray anytime anyone with an ounce of fiscal responsibility likes to talk about reform. Perhaps we need to get back to those days and let the people who are actually contributing to society, the taxpayers, keep more of what they earn instead of giving it to the lazyass deadbeats.

As for society benefiting from people not starving....I've yet to see any benefit come out of the government funded projects I used to make 10-12 runs a day to in my 20 year career. The only people I saw benefiting from that were the bail bondsmen, public defenders and the drug cartels.

(10-23-2016 04:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 04:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Very interesting viewpoint. What do we do with people who can not afford food? Why? So what you are saying we might start doing, we already do. We already make housing payments for those less fortunate too. I say the only difference between food stamps, Section 8 housing and medical care is that everyone needs to be fed and needs shelter daily not everyone needs daily medical care, but for those that do our government should provide help for those less fortunate. You advocate for your position as I will mine. Should we have people dying in the streets? Should we let people starve?

My opinion on government provided housing, food, etc. is this: If you are at a point where you require government assistance to eat then you get food provided to you from a government warehouse. If you are at a point where you need government assistance to have a place to stay then you live in government owned barracks. If you need government assistance for healthcare then you go to the VA and get government provided healthcare. It used to be where if you needed government assistance there was a stigma attached and we didn't have anywhere near as much dependence on the government, and when people got it they did their damnedest to get off of it as soon as possible. Funny thing was you also didn't have mass starvation, etc like the doomsday scenarios you leftist idiots like to portray anytime anyone with an ounce of fiscal responsibility likes to talk about reform. Perhaps we need to get back to those days and let the people who are actually contributing to society, the taxpayers, keep more of what they earn instead of giving it to the lazyass deadbeats.

As for society benefiting from people not starving....I've yet to see any benefit come out of the government funded projects I used to make 10-12 runs a day to in my 20 year career. The only people I saw benefiting from that were the bail bondsmen, public defenders and the drug cartels.

I don't see a lot of this:

(10-23-2016 04:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Very interesting viewpoint. What do we do with people who can not afford food? Why? So what you are saying we might start doing, we already do. We already make housing payments for those less fortunate too. I say the only difference between food stamps, Section 8 housing and medical care is that everyone needs to be fed and needs shelter daily not everyone needs daily medical care, but for those that do our government should provide help for those less fortunate. You advocate for your position as I will mine. Should we have people dying in the streets? Should we let people starve?

What is the difference between someone in need of food stamps vs. someone needing chemo therapy?

Does society benefit from people not starving?

You should look into the history of community insurance. You had to go and ask your very neighbors for financial assistance. And since they payed into the purse, they were motivated to control the purse strings. If you just had a spell of hard luck? No problem. Disabled? No problem. Lazy? Now we have a problem.

The difference between someone in need of food stamps vs chemo therapy is at least five figures in financial difference. As our population gets older and older, we have to face the reality that there simply isn't enough resources IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY to pay for all the medical needs of all these people. Regardless of your political perspective or your desired healthcare delivery mechanisms ... at the end of the day SOMEBODY ... SOMEWHERE .... must say NO to more bills for an old patient who will only marginally benefit from all the expense. Right now in the exchanges, the standard operating procedure is to simply deny anything they can for any reason no matter how trivial in the hopes you'll pick up the tab. I know I can't be the only one here who has wasted hours of their life on the phone forcing insurers to pay for what Obama claims they'll always pay for. And in case you weren't following along closely, yes, I just implied that death panels exist and are indeed a requirement of any major medical insurance operation. Which is why it was so stupid of Republicans to play that political game ... it's just as self-destructive as Democrats showing commercials wheeling granny off a cliff because the evil Republicans are gonna take her medicaid. At the end of the day, there is ALWAYS an arbiter to be reckoned with when you're more valuable to society dead than alive. And that is where the plurality of health insurance money is spent ... the last 18 months of a person's life. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats are too cowardly to tell you no to your face, so they just put you in a line longer than you have left to live for (insert expensive procedure with marginal benefit here). The Republicans and the free market at least had the courage to tell you up front what your plan's maximum lifetime expenditure was. I guess that's what humane and respectful treatment is according to the Democrats. You get told by a bureaucrat in the Department of Health and Human Services you're going to die, instead of being told by an automated letter that you've exhausted your plan's lifetime expenditure cap.

Society benefits from people not starving, sure. Again ... goes back to the community insurance concept we had before WWII. We can all get in a car accident or get hurt at work or come down with a serious illness. That's what insurance is for ... spreading risk of serious financial calamity across a broad pool of people so that no one person goes bankrupt. By paying for your food John Q. Starving through an insurance pool, I *expect* that one day if I'm down on my luck, I too will get a free meal.

But that only works so long as the purse strings are controlled to prevent lazy indulgence and wasteful spending on the margins.

Drive through the projects and tell me how many starving folks you see. Drive out in the backwoods country road and through the trailer parks and tell me how many starving folks you see. The idea of starving in this country is a normal BMI.

Dfarr,

You back up my point. I don't see a difference in somebody getting food stamps and a child that needs chemotherapy. We feed people today and you don't see this mass hysteria about it but set up health care for people.........

Set up a sales tax. Set it up modeled on Canada.