The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on February 22, 2017, 12:08:48 pm
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13519/why-trump-should-not-repeal-or-replace-obamacare-john-nolte#
Interesting perspective.
-
As we learned yesterday (http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/14/irs-blow-to-obamacare-individual-mandate), Trump -- God bless him -- has already murdered ObamaCare by issuing an Executive Order that, through a lack of enforcement, effectively repeals the fascist mandate. And yesterday, with the announcement that it will pull out of the exchanges at the end of the year, Humana just moved the ObamaCare death spiral into Defcon 1 (https://twitter.com/asymmetricinfo/status/831649668073406464).
[/size]Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
[/size]ObamaCare is already doomed, so…
[/size]Why should Trump and the GOP deal with the headaches? Why take the political hits? Why face two years of the Left rioting and the national media calling you a Nazi?
[/size]To finish off the destruction of ObamaCare, all Trump and the GOP have to do is a whole lot of nothing….
-
Nolte (once of Breitbart fame) has already come up with the rationale for leaving Obamacare in place.
Laws never die (without sunset clauses or court strikedowns, and in the latter case SCOTUS has explicitly refused to deal with it). The mandate is still in place. Nothing short of an immediate halt to it will do (and, since less than 1% of the U.S. population actually entered an actual insurance pool because of the mandate, it won't have a major impact).
-
Nolte (once of Breitbart fame) has already come up with the rationale for leaving Obamacare in place.
Laws never die (without sunset clauses or court strikedowns, and in the latter case SCOTUS has explicitly refused to deal with it). The mandate is still in place. Nothing short of an immediate halt to it will do (and, since less than 1% of the U.S. population actually entered an actual insurance pool because of the mandate, it won't have a major impact).
That's my thought too. If they don't pull it up by the roots it will come back with a vengeance.
-
Complaints about the "fascist mandate" would disappear if the government would simply allow hospitals to turn away non-paying individuals at the emergency room. Pass a law insulating hospitals from lawsuits for refusing to provide uncompensated care. Free riders count on the rest of us picking up their costs when they get sick. Let 'em die. Saves on Social Security costs, too.
:smokin:
-
Complaints about the "fascist mandate" would disappear if the government would simply allow hospitals to turn away non-paying individuals at the emergency room. Pass a law insulating hospitals from lawsuits for refusing to provide uncompensated care. Free riders count on the rest of us picking up their costs when they get sick. Let 'em die. Saves on Social Security costs, too.
:smokin:
Where does Social Security pick up the tab at the ER?
-
Where does Social Security pick up the tab at the ER?
I think the point would be that people who die for lack of funds to pay for health care won't be drawing SS.
-
I think the point would be that people who die for lack of funds to pay for health care won't be drawing SS.
Considering that Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, and even private payment cover a lot, letting someone die of medical neglect in the lobby because they didn't have an insurance card with them is going a bit far.
Then, too, it could have been something which could have been fixed, but failure to do so will leave someone able to draw Disability for the rest of their life. Net savings? No.
My other objection is this: You can be crossing in the crosswalk and get hit by some jerk, or be driving and have the same thing happen. Are you going to be left to die because someone else hit you if you don't have insurance? @Jazzhead Funny that someone who would force a Christian florist to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding would let people die in the ER. I guess butthurt matters more than human life to some people.
-
Considering that Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, and even private payment cover a lot, letting someone die of medical neglect in the lobby because they didn't have an insurance card with them is going a bit far.
Then, too, it could have been something which could have been fixed, but failure to do so will leave someone able to draw Disability for the rest of their life. Net savings? No.
My other objection is this: You can be crossing in the crosswalk and get hit by some jerk, or be driving and have the same thing happen. Are you going to be left to die because someone else hit you if you don't have insurance? @Jazzhead Funny that someone who would force a Christian florist to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding would let people die in the ER. I guess butthurt matters more than human life to some people.
For the record, I did not say that I agreed with the point.
-
Complaints about the "fascist mandate" would disappear if the government would simply allow hospitals to turn away non-paying individuals at the emergency room. Pass a law insulating hospitals from lawsuits for refusing to provide uncompensated care. Free riders count on the rest of us picking up their costs when they get sick. Let 'em die. Saves on Social Security costs, too.
:smokin:
I can see how pro-choicers might see it that way.
In some states, a lot of the ERs are bogged down with illegal aliens and ER visits that really aren't emergencies. This would be another benefit of a mass deportation.
-
Funny that someone who would force a Christian florist to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding would let people die in the ER. I guess butthurt matters more than human life to some people.
I had hoped that the li'l devil icon would suggest to the reader that I was being tongue-in-cheek. Everybody ought to have insurance that covers emergency room visits. Maybe we'll need single payer to accomplish that; obviously there are lots of determined free riders out there that consider addressing the issue through the private insurance system to be "fascist".
But the fact is that the rest of us who have the good sense to have insurance are forced to pay more for it in order to compensate hospitals for the uncompensated care they provide to the free riders.
-
In some states, a lot of the ERs are bogged down with . . . ER visits that really aren't emergencies.
That's another problem that the ACA was intended to address. Insurance policies cover routine doc visits and encourage individuals to forge a relationship with a family doctor. That keeps folks out of the emergency room.
-
I can see how pro-choicers might see it that way.
In some states, a lot of the ERs are bogged down with illegal aliens and ER visits that really aren't emergencies. This would be another benefit of a mass deportation.
Check out nearly any ER in California. You'll see them full of fully grown day laborers with flu symptoms, children with runny noses waiting, entire families waiting for care. Several old hospitals in the Bay Area have had to close and I strongly suspect this is a big reason why.
-
I had hoped that the li'l devil icon would suggest to the reader that I was being tongue-in-cheek. Everybody ought to have insurance that covers emergency room visits. Maybe we'll need single payer to accomplish that; obviously there are lots of determined free riders out there that consider addressing the issue through the private insurance system to be "fascist".
But the fact is that the rest of us who have the good sense to have insurance are forced to pay more for it in order to compensate hospitals for the uncompensated care they provide to the free riders.
Perhaps for illegal aliens whom appear to be a drain on our social net; they should be turned away. That's a proper idea. They are not citizens of this country.
-
That's another problem that the ACA was intended to address. Insurance policies cover routine doc visits and encourage individuals to forge a relationship with a family doctor. That keeps folks out of the emergency room.
I doubt that will help. Why go through the trouble of finding one of the diminishing number of doctors who'll take insurance through 'Covered California', for example, when you can get care immediately and without the copay and premium.
That is, if ACA requires low income people to pay anything for coverage at all. I honestly don't know.
-
That's another problem that the ACA was intended to address. Insurance policies cover routine doc visits and encourage individuals to forge a relationship with a family doctor. That keeps folks out of the emergency room.
The problem is that many "conservatives" want to do away with the ACA, but don't have any answer for the problems we had without it. If the mandate is gone, you either have hospitals or taxpayers covering ER care, or you have people dying without care.
ER for sniffles shouldn't be covered, though.
-
Putting aside the animus many feel toward Obama, the Dems and the ACA, what are folks general thoughts about addressing the access issue by means of single payer vs. a private insurance system supported by "fascist mandates"?
Wouldn't an ACA that's fixed so it actually provides affordable options be superior to single payer? Why or why not?
-
Let it die?
Hell, the GOP won from a court the court case and the right to stop making illegal payments to Obamacare insurers and will not even stop the payments.
How will they let it die when they will be illegally making the payments still and now own Obamacare?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/21/house-republicans-beg-court-for-more-time-to-resol/
-
Putting aside the animus many feel toward Obama, the Dems and the ACA, what are folks general thoughts about addressing the access issue by means of single payer vs. a private insurance system supported by "fascist mandates"?
Wouldn't an ACA that's fixed so it actually provides affordable options be superior to single payer? Why or why not?
You will never get people to sign on to the penalty aspect of it.
Nor will you ever get people to sign on to the huge taxes that come with single payer (rightly so btw).
Americans just aren't good lil' socialists.
-
I am personally against anyone being turned away from a hospital ER but it should be up to the state's and hospital's choice on whether to do this.
-
Considering that Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, and even private payment cover a lot, letting someone die of medical neglect in the lobby because they didn't have an insurance card with them is going a bit far.
@Smokin Joe
The system is screwed. The only times I have been to an emergency room, happened in the last three years. I was taken by ambulance to the emergency room twice, stayed about an hour or hour and a half, each time, and each time the hospital cost was in the many thousands for those brief stays. There is no way the cost should have been that much.
The first time, a car hit us on my side of the car, just in front of my door. After the hit, I couldn't turn my neck due to pain. I stayed still which I had to do anyway, since my door wouldn't open. The ambulance got there, and got my door open. I told him I couldn't turn my neck without severe pain. I also told him I was an EMT. He put a neck brace on me, they got me out and he told the other EMTs, "She is an EMT so she knows the drill." At the hospital, they did an ex-ray of my knee that was bleeding, and an MRI of my neck. The neck wasn't broken, thank God. They did nothing about the bleeding knee that was bleeding on the sheets of their bed. When they let me go, and I got home, I cleaned up my knee. I wore a neck brace for a number of days before that pain left. When I got the bill, I was shocked to see it was many thousands of dollars for one x-ray and one MRI. That was ridiculous. Also, the separate doctor bill was over a thousand.
Two years after that, in the dark, I walked to our mailbox, had my Yorkie in my arms, got the mail, and was walking up our sidewalk and the next instant, I was slammed down on a big rock, the left side of my face slamming down on the rock. I was stunned for a few seconds, realized my skull around my left eye could be broken, and I didn't move. I called for help, and a man walking on the sidewalk came and I had him call 911. The ambulance took me to a trauma hospital (same one I was take to before) due to the likelihood of broken facial/skull fracture. The left side of my face was turning black and my eye was full of blood. An MRI was done and my skull/facial bones were not broken. My Bob got to the hospital, he was not home when this happened, and he said I looked like a devil, with a black face and eye full of blood, with a blue eye in the middle. I thanked him for telling me that. :silly:
My eye had a scratch on the cornea. I had to put certain drops in the eye for a number of days and the blackness finally left. Then, I got the bill - many thousands of dollars for that hour and a half in the emergency room and one MRI. That was also ridiculous. Once again, the separate doctor bill was over a thousand.
Bills for medical service have gone out of sight since Obamacare. I had Medicare and supplemental insurance for those two times, so I paid nothing, but others who didn't have such insurance, would have been devastated by having to pay those. Plus, under Obamacare, people have huge deductibles, so they would have had to pay those thousands. Due to the deductibles, people aren't going to the doctor. They have a piece of paper that says they have insurance, but they really don't due to the high deductibles.
-
Putting aside the animus many feel toward Obama, the Dems and the ACA, what are folks general thoughts about addressing the access issue by means of single payer vs. a private insurance system supported by "fascist mandates"?
Wouldn't an ACA that's fixed so it actually provides affordable options be superior to single payer? Why or why not?
What would be the matter with expanding Medicare to cover the means-tested CITIZEN poor, and leave the rest of us the heck alone in a market driven private insurance system?
-
@Smokin Joe
The system is screwed.
Agreed, and this is why it's a mistake to say the US health care system is "the best in the world". It has it's good points, but a lot of bad ones too.
-
What would be the matter with expanding Medicare to cover the means-tested CITIZEN poor, and leave the rest of us the heck alone in a market driven private insurance system?
I'd even go for that, and patching up critical care patients who weren't citizens (and sending the illegals home from the hospital).
-
That's another problem that the ACA was intended to address. Insurance policies cover routine doc visits and encourage individuals to forge a relationship with a family doctor. That keeps folks out of the emergency room.
Except it hasn't worked out that way -- Massachusetts found that out. There are still a ton of people who go to emergency rooms despite having coverage, simply because it takes no planning and is the easiest thing for them to do.
My stepdaughter is an emergency room nurse, and they are routinely flooded by people who come there for non-emergency treatment despite having coverage. The staff even has a name for it -- "Hispanic panic."
-
I'd even go for that, and patching up critical care patients who weren't citizens (and sending the illegals home from the hospital).
Hospitals should have discretion they currently don't have when it comes to treatment in their ERs. Surely some definite guidelines could be developed to guarantee critical care cases aren't turned away but that hospital services aren't abused.
I'm sure that would set immigrant & homeless advocates to howling.
-
This article -- like so many others -- completely misses the point on ObamaCare. The core of it is not the individual mandate. The core of it is the expansion of Medicaid, which essentially made health care for everyone an entitlement.
-
This article -- like so many others -- completely misses the point on ObamaCare. The core of it is not the individual mandate. The core of it is the expansion of Medicaid, which essentially made health care for everyone an entitlement.
We need to start making Medicaid Receipients... pay for Medicaid then.
-
Putting aside the animus many feel toward Obama, the Dems and the ACA, what are folks general thoughts about addressing the access issue by means of single payer vs. a private insurance system supported by "fascist mandates"?
Wouldn't an ACA that's fixed so it actually provides affordable options be superior to single payer? Why or why not?
The ACA as it currently stands is an "end justifies the means" sort of thing. The ACA echoes the authoritarian tendencies of the people who wrote it: only the bureaucracy, armed with the power of financial coercion, is capable of fully comprehending and addressing the true needs of the people.
When you look at it, the utter failure of the ACA can be laid at the very feet of the authoritarian solutions; hence, the millions of people who were thrown out of "non-compliant" plans that were nevertheless sufficient to their needs, and forced to less suitable and much more expansive plans.
Part of the problem with health care costs in general has to do with the whole "insurance model" of medical care. There is no "free market" in medicine -- it's already controlled by large, inefficient, and intractable corporate bureaucracies. A single-payer system doesn't fundamentally change the economics of the current system, except probably to make it even less responsive.
There is a good moral argument to be made for ensuring that everybody gets some basic and sufficient level of care. Probably the least intrusive approach would be some sort of means-tested subsidy for plans that meet some basic standards of service; and those subsidies are almost certainly best applied at the state rather than national level.
-
We need to start making Medicaid Receipients... pay for Medicaid then.
Or punt it to the states. Kasich campaigned on being this budgetary whiz, and he's now complaining that the feds will stop funding the Medicaid expansion. But why should that matter? If Kasich thinks the expansion is so worthwhile, why not fund and administer it on the state level?
-
Or punt it to the states. Kasich campaigned on being this budgetary whiz, and he's now complaining that the feds will stop funding the Medicaid expansion. But why should that matter? If Kasich thinks the expansion is so worthwhile, why not fund and administer it on the state level?
He wants something for nothing, like every other person in this country? :)
-
There is a good moral argument to be made for ensuring that everybody gets some basic and sufficient level of care. Probably the least intrusive approach would be some sort of means-tested subsidy for plans that meet some basic standards of service; and those subsidies are almost certainly best applied at the state rather than national level.
Perhaps the "means-tested subsidy" could be in the form of a cash contribution or credit to a medical savings account that can be used, as the recipient sees fit, for the payment of insurance premiums or direct reimbursement of health care costs. Pay for it by an increase in FICA taxes imposed on wages, tariffs placed on imported goods, or a national consumption tax or VAT. I'd prefer the financing for such a means-tested contribution be done at the national level, with regulation of medical insurance policies left at the state level.
-
Perhaps the "means-tested subsidy" could be in the form of a cash contribution or credit to a medical savings account that can be used, as the recipient sees fit, for the payment of insurance premiums or direct reimbursement of health care costs.
Yes, something of that sort. It could be implemented by something like a Flexible Spending Account card. And I could see it working to the benefit of entrepreneurial "concierge care" clinics, which don't operate according to the standard insurance model.
Pay for it by an increase in FICA taxes imposed on wages, tariffs placed on imported goods, or a national consumption tax or VAT. I'd prefer the financing for such a means-tested contribution be done at the national level, with regulation of medical insurance policies left at the state level.
That's fine, so long as the federal government can be enticed to leave off the strings. (Probably the most important part of the Obamacare ruling was that the Feds cannot place such strings on block grants to states...).
-
Complaints about the "fascist mandate" would disappear if the government would simply allow hospitals to turn away non-paying individuals at the emergency room. Pass a law insulating hospitals from lawsuits for refusing to provide uncompensated care. Free riders count on the rest of us picking up their costs when they get sick. Let 'em die. Saves on Social Security costs, too.
:smokin:
Please don't mistake me for a bleeding heart liberal but I cannot share your opinion ... which you may have posted as a joke or sarcasm.
-
Considering that Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, and even private payment cover a lot, letting someone die of medical neglect in the lobby because they didn't have an insurance card with them is going a bit far.
Then, too, it could have been something which could have been fixed, but failure to do so will leave someone able to draw Disability for the rest of their life. Net savings? No.
My other objection is this: You can be crossing in the crosswalk and get hit by some jerk, or be driving and have the same thing happen. Are you going to be left to die because someone else hit you if you don't have insurance? @Jazzhead Funny that someone who would force a Christian florist to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding would let people die in the ER. I guess butthurt matters more than human life to some people.
None of this emergency room stuff has a thing to do with Obamacare. Obamacare should be repealed like yesterday. Don't let any of its creepy tentacles remain to foul up health care. Just repeal it. Damn the torpedoes ... full speed ahead.
-
Emergency rooms do not and should not turn people away.
When my husband was having heart problems that led to a few emergency room visits, I observed ER abuse.
Example: While waiting with him, two families came in, one after another, with children who had head lice. Head lice is not an emergency. These were minority families who, oddly enough, did not want their children to have head lice.
I listened as ER personnel treated both families with care and respect and helped them with dealing with this problem. I have no problem with this.
And this was way before Obamacare.
-
No, no, no and a thousand times NO! Nuke the gawd ammed thing from orbit, kill it with fire, and put the ashes on a spacecraft headed for a black hole!
-
I listened as ER personnel treated both families with care and respect and helped them with dealing with this problem. I have no problem with this.
And this was way before Obamacare.
The problem is that people treat the ER like their doctor's office, which leads to overcrowding; plus which, the ER is intrinsically a high-cost option.
This is one of the problems that Obamacare was supposedly going to address; but of course it did not work out as claimed -- the primary reason being the serious difficulty in finding doctors who will actually accept Medicaid patients.
-
The problem is that people treat the ER like their doctor's office, which leads to overcrowding; plus which, the ER is intrinsically a high-cost option.
This is one of the problems that Obamacare was supposedly going to address; but of course it did not work out as claimed -- the primary reason being the serious difficulty in finding doctors who will actually accept Medicaid patients.
CHIP had/has (don't know if it is still around) the same problem. Families could get there kids covered even if there wasn't a single doctor in the state that would treat them. We need fewer money sucking boondoggles, not more.
-
Please don't mistake me for a bleeding heart liberal but I cannot share your opinion ... which you may have posted as a joke or sarcasm.
My point is that those who play by the rules end up subsidizing those free riders who don't play by the rules. Hospitals are not going to throw free riders into the street - but they will pass the costs along to those of us who have insurance. (That is, the insurers will pay more and increase their rates accordingly.)
That's why it's so important for every responsible individual to have insurance. Free riders should be scorned, not praised for opposing a "fascist mandate". There IS an alternative to the "fascist mandate" - a single payer system financed with general tax revenues. Those who demand the ACA be scrapped need to face reality - the alternative is single payer.
-
Agreed, and this is why it's a mistake to say the US health care system is "the best in the world". It has it's good points, but a lot of bad ones too.
It is not a mistake. Did you watch Ted Cruz debate the ancient socialist on this issue.
Bernie kept citing other countries with government run health care supposedly available to all as better than the U.S.
Ted countered by giving facts about how long people had to wait in these countries for needed procedures. If you live in one, just pray you don't need a knee or hip replacement.
Government should not be in the health care business. They WILL foul it up.
I had a dear friend who was born in England and came over as a war bride (WW II). She made a life here and had a very good job as a bank executive. But she always had that nostalgia for England and decided to go back to be with family and be where health care was paid for and available.
It wasn't 3 months until I got a letter from her. So sad. Her family was not as supportive as she had hoped. She had been out of their lives too long. She sold everything she had to get over there and the health care was the worst. She could NOT get health care. It took her a year to save up enough to get back. She told me it was the worst mistake she'd ever made.
-
My point is that those who play by the rules end up subsidizing those free riders who don't play by the rules. Hospitals are not going to throw free riders into the street - but they will pass the costs along to those of us who have insurance. (That is, the insurers will pay more and increase their rates accordingly.)
That's why it's so important for every responsible individual to have insurance. Free riders should be scorned, not praised for opposing a "fascist mandate". There IS an alternative to the "fascist mandate" - a single payer system financed with general tax revenues. Those who demand the ACA be scrapped need to face reality - the alternative is single payer.
We had that problems for decades prior to Obummer care. We can go back to having it for a while or we can work on real conservative solutions. More government is the problem, not the solution.
-
Ted countered by giving facts about how long people had to wait in these countries for needed procedures. If you live in one, just pray you don't need a knee or hip replacement.
Why should others pay for this sort of non-essential procedure? Does your homeowner's insurance pay to patch a leak in your roof? Or do you need to save for such a contingency yourself?
Government should not be in the health care business. They WILL foul it up.
Well, when it comes to the health care FINANCING business, there are only four potential players - the government, private insurance companies, charity, and one's own thrift and savings. Take your pick.
-
We had that problems for decades prior to Obummer care. We can go back to having it for a while or we can work on real conservative solutions. More government is the problem, not the solution.
That problem has always existed and always will. Obamacare did not help it but penalized the rest of society. It should be abolished.
It is one the issues people are most impatient about. I've seen a bunch of posts on Facebook and other sites complaining that Trump has had a whole month and hasn't abolished Obamacare yet.
-
Why should others pay for this sort of non-essential procedure? Does your homeowner's insurance pay to patch a leak in your roof? Or do you need to save for such a contingency yourself?
Well, when it comes to the health care FINANCING business, there are only four potential players - the government, private insurance companies, charity, and one's own thrift and savings. Take your pick.
Hint. Government = others.
-
Why should others pay for this sort of non-essential procedure? Does your homeowner's insurance pay to patch a leak in your roof? Or do you need to save for such a contingency yourself?
Well, when it comes to the health care FINANCING business, there are only four potential players - the government, private insurance companies, charity, and one's own thrift and savings. Take your pick.
When you need a hip transplant, come on over and tell me how non-essential it is.
-
We had that problems for decades prior to Obummer care. We can go back to having it for a while or we can work on real conservative solutions. More government is the problem, not the solution.
What is your "real conservative solution" for the access issue? I'm tired of slogans ("More government is the problem, not the solution"). I am interested in specific policy proposals to provide affordable health care financing for all, including the poor and the sick. What are yours?
-
When you need a hip transplant, come on over and tell me how non-essential it is.
So what's your proposed solution? Just saying "scrap the ACA" isn't a solution. How do you propose to pay for hip replacements for all?
-
It wasn't 3 months until I got a letter from her. So sad. Her family was not as supportive as she had hoped. She had been out of their lives too long. She sold everything she had to get over there and the health care was the worst. She could NOT get health care. It took her a year to save up enough to get back. She told me it was the worst mistake she'd ever made.
Our neighbor had a similar story. She'd long been dismissive of American health care and moved back to the UK, where she ended up injuring her shoulder. The waiting list for a National Health Service MRI was months long, and it would have taken 2 years to get shoulder surgery.
Luckily for her they have the wherewithal to get into the private medical system, and she got her surgery.
They've since moved back -- they're more American now than anything else; but she willingly ate crow about her previous disdain for the "wasteful" American approach.
-
What is your "real conservative solution" for the access issue? I'm tired of slogans ("More government is the problem, not the solution"). I am interested in specific policy proposals to provide affordable health care financing for all, including the poor and the sick. What are yours?
I don't want to sound cruel here, but that isn't exactly what we fought a revolution for. Some things don't fall under the purview of the Federal Leviathan.
I'm failing to see how either Obama care or singler payer are step in the right direction compared to the emergency room problem. Better to subsidize the care than the insurance. Insurance isn't a god given right. Sorry.
States have the power, charities (and there are lots and I know from experience they can get the job done for a lot of folks) should have more ability to help.
Personally I think torte reform and opening insurance markets up across state lines would play a big role in bringing down prices for both care and insurance. From there we have 50 states; let them compete on the best way to solve this problem. That usually works better than the Federal Leviathan issuing and orders from on high that they have to pass to even find out what they passed.
-
Personally I think torte reform and opening insurance markets up across state lines would play a big role in bringing down prices for both care and insurance. From there we have 50 states; let them compete on the best way to solve this problem. That usually works better than the Federal Leviathan issuing and orders from on high that they have to pass to even find out what they passed.
I think also that finding some way to move normal medical care away from the insurance model would help a lot. Doctors have to hire full-time employees just to deal with insurance claims -- the overhead from hiring 2-3 such people is probably a couple of hundred thousand a year.
-
Personally I think torte reform and opening insurance markets up across state lines would play a big role in bringing down prices for both care and insurance. From there we have 50 states; let them compete on the best way to solve this problem. That usually works better than the Federal Leviathan issuing and orders from on high that they have to pass to even find out what they passed.
Tort reform can help, but only a little. As for opening up insurance markets across state lines, how does that square with your opposition to the "Federal Leviathan"? States have historically regulated insurance with respect to their own citizens. Why should Idaho's rules be trumped by a Federal rule that allows an Idaho resident to purchase insurance not sanctioned by the state of Idaho? (I'm not saying this can't be a good idea, but let's not kid ourselves - it represents a Federal usurpation of traditional state authority.)
-
Our neighbor had a similar story. She'd long been dismissive of American health care and moved back to the UK, where she ended up injuring her shoulder. The waiting list for a National Health Service MRI was months long, and it would have taken 2 years to get shoulder surgery.
Luckily for her they have the wherewithal to get into the private medical system, and she got her surgery.
They've since moved back -- they're more American now than anything else; but she willingly ate crow about her previous disdain for the "wasteful" American approach.
Yep! And that's just two stories from a small group of people here.
There's not gonna be a perfect healthcare solution but there can certainly be a better one than Obamacare.
-
I think also that finding some way to move normal medical care away from the insurance model would help a lot. Doctors have to hire full-time employees just to deal with insurance claims -- the overhead from hiring 2-3 such people is probably a couple of hundred thousand a year.
This I agree with. I'm intrigued by a "stop loss" insurance model, where insurance kicks in only when combined medical bills exceed a certain dollar amount. This would encourage consumers to pay cash for services and doctors to price their services to factor in the savings that result from not having to process claims through insurers.
-
There's not gonna be a perfect healthcare solution but there can certainly be a better one than Obamacare.
I don't disagree, but believe that the ACA can be FIXED to address its worst failures. But if we're not going to enforce the "fascist mandate", then the alternative is single payer.
-
Well, when it comes to the health care FINANCING business, there are only four potential players - the government, private insurance companies, charity, and one's own thrift and savings. Take your pick.
That is no change from each decade going back in history. Intelligent, thoughtful higher income people picked insurance and savings, to finance their medical care needs.
Less responsible and lower income people relied on charity and government. In my county, two of the best known large hospitals go back decades, one catholic, the other Presbyterian.
Is it a moral given, that all are entitled to the same level and quality of care? Is it a given that one man must pay for the care of another?
Finally if there is no "cost," poor people are encouraged to stay poor, irresponsible people are encouraged to remain irresponsible.
"Cost" also defined as little, or no care.
-
This I agree with. I'm intrigued by a "stop loss" insurance model, where insurance kicks in only when combined medical bills exceed a certain dollar amount.
OK, but that's something that an insurance company can offer as an option; I believe that catastrophic health insurance plans are essentially that sort of model. It is not something I'd want a government to get involved with.
This would encourage consumers to pay cash for services and doctors to price their services to factor in the savings that result from not having to process claims through insurers.
That's a different issue. There is already a movement, small as yet, toward offering standard medical care on "concierge care" basis, but most people -- and most doctors -- are still tied to health insurance plans, which are mostly provided through employers. The doctors who have moved to "concierge care" do it for a couple of reasons: one, it costs less, and two, they're more interested in practicing medicine than in managing formularies.
-
I don't disagree, but believe that the ACA can be FIXED to address its worst failures. But if we're not going to enforce the "fascist mandate", then the alternative is single payer.
You have not made this case.
-
I don't disagree, but believe that the ACA can be FIXED to address its worst failures. But if we're not going to enforce the "fascist mandate", then the alternative is single payer.
Nope. Too many holes to be patched. Just get a new tire or a new plan.
-
This I agree with. I'm intrigued by a "stop loss" insurance model, where insurance kicks in only when combined medical bills exceed a certain dollar amount. This would encourage consumers to pay cash for services and doctors to price their services to factor in the savings that result from not having to process claims through insurers.
One used to be able to get reasonably priced "high deductible" insurance plans. No more, however.
Self-insuring most routine/preventative care, but insurance kicks in for "catastrophic" needs.
However such an option would require a society with citizens responsible enough, to save and prepare for ongoing medical needs.
Government provided or mandated/subsidized health care discourages responsible planning, utilization of care.
The same concepts apply to food, shelter, education,, etc.
That which comes too easily, is taken for granted, abused, etc.
-
Tort reform can help, but only a little. As for opening up insurance markets across state lines, how does that square with your opposition to the "Federal Leviathan"? States have historically regulated insurance with respect to their own citizens. Why should Idaho's rules be trumped by a Federal rule that allows an Idaho resident to purchase insurance not sanctioned by the state of Idaho? (I'm not saying this can't be a good idea, but let's not kid ourselves - it represents a Federal usurpation of traditional state authority.)
Not sure I see that. There's not reason I can't buy other products and services across in another state. It's the federal law shrinking the market and reducing competition in the current system.
-
You have not made this case.
I haven't seen any evidence it's better than the screwed up system we had before Obama. Costs have risen. Insurance choices have dropped. The government has collected a lot of fees I mean taxes from folks who couldn't afford insurance. Many people have lost insurance.
-
Kill it. Kill it dead.
-
I haven't seen any evidence it's better than the screwed up system we had before Obama. Costs have risen. Insurance choices have dropped. The government has collected a lot of fees I mean taxes from folks who couldn't afford insurance. Many people have lost insurance.
It has helped a few people. It just shifted winners and losers IMO.
-
I'm failing to see how either Obama care or singler payer are step in the right direction compared to the emergency room problem. Better to subsidize the care than the insurance. Insurance isn't a god given right. Sorry.
This touches on the crux of the problem. Obamacare was not health CARE, but health INSURANCE. Nothing got fixed with health care, and the cost of insurance just got shifted onto the poor slob who was trying to keep his job, build a business, and keep his own insurance. Coverages were degraded (or flat out eliminated) and prices went up, for those who could afford it, and for those who couldn't, the guy who could afford it got to pick up the tab, which he was doing before, only not for insurance so much as for health care.
So, the parts of the industry which could operate in the black became government subsidized, and the rest pulled back in the marketplace, which was the idea anyway--the "consumer" be damned.
-
I haven't seen any evidence it's better than the screwed up system we had before Obama. Costs have risen. Insurance choices have dropped. The government has collected a lot of fees I mean taxes from folks who couldn't afford insurance. Many people have lost insurance.
And ACA hasn't covered a single person who didn't have access to healthcare before.
-
@Jazzhead If you do want to drag the gobmint into this. It should be as simple as possible. Health Savings account that is a real account for each person; the way social security was supposed to work. Keep it simple, keep the money out in the open where people can see it, and make it pay for care not insurance.
Obama care due to the sheer size can never achieve any of those goals.
-
Just do what you said you would do and repeal it entirely then file legislation to implement what you want to keep. Seems like the correct path to me.
-
Just do what you said you would do and repeal it entirely then file legislation to implement what you want to keep. Seems like the correct path to me.
Yep. THat way all the hidden nasty bits get repealed, too.
-
Yep. THat way all the hidden nasty bits get repealed, too.
Yes, there is a lot of wording that leaves things up to the desecration or discretion of the HHS Secretary and that needs to go. We don't need the rules to change every election.
-
Yep. THat way all the hidden nasty bits get repealed, too.
Which is exactly why they don't want to go that route!
-
And ACA hasn't covered a single person who didn't have access to healthcare before.
The issue is access to health care insurance . Millions of folks who did not have access to health care insurance before have been enrolled in the ACA-expanded Medicaid and ACA marketplace individual policies. The problem with the ACA is that many policies in the former individual insurance marketplace became non-compliant, or were forced into narrower provider networks so folks had to switch doctors. ACA was a boon to many, but the promise that "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a cruel lie.
There are serious problems with the ACA - but it CAN be fixed without resorting to single payer.
-
The issue is access to health care insurance . Millions of folks who did not have access to health care insurance before have been enrolled in the ACA-expanded Medicaid and ACA marketplace individual policies. The problem with the ACA is that many policies in the former individual insurance marketplace became non-compliant, or were forced into narrower provider networks so folks had to switch doctors. ACA was a boon to many, but the promise that "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a cruel lie.
There are serious problems with the ACA - but it CAN be fixed without resorting to single payer.
Why do you think that is better than a repeal and replace approach?
-
Why do you think that is better than a repeal and replace approach?
Because the ACA has indeed been a boon to many. Why not keep what's good and fix what's bad?
-
Because the ACA has indeed been a boon to many. Why not keep what's good and fix what's bad?
Because your liberal ponzi scheme has hurt the country more than helped.
But as a supporter of myriad liberal causes, you pound away, intent to keep it forced on America.
-
or were forced into narrower provider networks so folks had to switch doctors. ACA was a boon to many, but the promise that "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a cruel lie.
being forced into extremely narrow "healthcare corridors" is an improvement?
-
The issue is access to health care insurance . Millions of folks who did not have access to health care insurance before have been enrolled in the ACA-expanded Medicaid and ACA marketplace individual policies. The problem with the ACA is that many policies in the former individual insurance marketplace became non-compliant, or were forced into narrower provider networks so folks had to switch doctors. ACA was a boon to many, but the promise that "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a cruel lie.
There are serious problems with the ACA - but it CAN be fixed without resorting to single payer.
Maybe it depends on where you are, but I have yet to meet anyone who actually has better health care or better insurance coverage as a result of the ACA. I lost the continuing coverage I had had before I got cancer, as the ACA forced them out of the health insurance business. Now I have to rely on Indian Health, which is out-of-pocket for all practical purposes, and was the real poster child (along with the VA) for not having the Federal Government involved in health care in the first place.
You may run with a crowd who have different pre-existing problems, and there are a couple of groups which likely fit the bill and want someone else to cover the costs of things they have acquired who didn't have insurance or couldn't get it because of behavioural issues..
And as far as the doctor bit went, with the ACA coming, and after HIPAA, my doctor had had enough and retired.
-
Maybe it depends on where you are, but I have yet to meet anyone who actually has better health care or better insurance coverage as a result of the ACA. You may run with a crowd who have different pre-existing problems, and there are a couple of groups which likely fit the bill and wants someone else to cover the costs of things they have acquired.
Every group in Britain benefits from their universal healthcare. They universally wait months for cancer treatments and such. Every man woman and child in Canada benefits from their socialist healthcare. thats why they USED to flood across the border to get treated in American facilities for cash.
Some people simply want liberalism. No matter who it kills.
-
Every group in Britain benefits from their universal healthcare. They universally wait months for cancer treatments and such. Every man woman and child in Canada benefits from their socialist healthcare. thats why they USED to flood across the border to get treated in American facilities for cash.
Some people simply want liberalism. No matter who it kills.
Yeah, we used to get a lot of Canadians coming down to get tests and even procedures they would have had to wait years for up north. In many cases the wait would have been enough time for the dirt to settle and grass to grow on their graves. Often a stent or a quick removal of a small and unmetastasized tumor would do the trick, when a wait would have been a death sentence--but that was the idea, after all, it's cheaper to box them up than fix 'em, right?
The reason liberals want it is they think, somehow they'll be exempt from the miseries they inflict, or that they are tho only ones, ever, who can 'get it right' if they just throw enough of other people's money at the problem and make enough rules.
That's how the tax code got the way it is.
-
Yeah, we used to get a lot of Canadians coming down to get tests and even procedures they would have had to wait years for up north. In many cases the wait would have been enough time for the dirt to settle and grass to grow on their graves.
The reason liberals want it is they think, somehow they'll be exempt from the miseries they inflict, or that they are tho only ones, ever, who can 'get it right' if they just throw enough of other people's money at the problem and make enough rules.
That's how the tax code got the way it is.
Ever notice liberals here and elsewhere always talk about 'the groups that benefit from Obamacare" but rarely get specific? Thats because Obamacare benefits people like those that give them power. The gay lobby. The Muslim lobby.
Notice a pattern? It's pretty peculiar that those that support any of those groups invariably support ALL of those groups. And yet we are to believe that 'conservatives' support Obamacare.
-
Ever notice liberals here and elsewhere always talk about 'the groups that benefit from Obamacare" but rarely get specific? Thats because Obamacare benefits people like those that give them power. The gay lobby. The Muslim lobby.
Notice a pattern? It's pretty peculiar that those that support any of those groups invariably support ALL of those groups. And yet we are to believe that 'conservatives' support Obamacare.
Actually, I have noticed a pattern. These people aren't interested in 'equal' anything unless it is reduced to the worst for all. Classic Communist/Socialist stuff (in practice, that is, because the theory only works great in theory). There is heavy resentment/desire for paybacks in there, too. But as I have long said, "Angry people do stupid things".
-
Actually, I have noticed a pattern. These people aren't interested in 'equal' anything unless it is reduced to the worst for all. Classic Communist/Socialist stuff (in practice, that is, because the theory only works great in theory). There is heavy resentment/desire for paybacks in there, too. But as I have long said, "Angry people do stupid things".
Yup. When you use the very language of liberals, support the causes of liberals and assure the suffering of the greatest number of people in the process, you probably arent a redneck. But you are assuredly a liberal.
There is not one problem on this planet of significance liberals have not caused, made worse, or both. With one exception. Allowing them to do so with impunity is the fault of every non liberal because you can't blame pond scum for being what it is and you can't blame a liberal for being what they are. Liberals gotta Lib.
-
Yup. When you use the very language of liberals, support the causes of liberals and assure the suffering of the greatest number of people in the process, you probably arent a redneck. But you are assuredly a liberal.
And when you persist in painting everything in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites, you become an insufferable bore.
-
And when you persist in painting everything in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites, you become an insufferable bore.
Behold my field of caring and see that it is barren.
TLDR: Hit dogs howl.
-
TLDR: Hit dogs howl.
... he howled.
You're boring, Norm. Trying for a bit of context and perspective -- not to mention basic humanity -- would do wonders for you.
-
Every group in Britain benefits from their universal healthcare. They universally wait months for cancer treatments and such. Every man woman and child in Canada benefits from their socialist healthcare. thats why they USED to flood across the border to get treated in American facilities for cash.
Some people simply want liberalism. No matter who it kills.
And continually try to make the case that forcing people to live on the liberal (government) plantation is somehow "humane". I'll never figure that out if I live to a hundred!
-
... he howled.
You're boring, Norm. Trying for a bit of context and perspective -- not to mention basic humanity -- would do wonders for you.
Boring is you trying this tact every couple weeks and failing over and over. No one cares. No one is impressed. Once again I invite you to put me on ignore. The fact you constantly refuse to do it is something you need to work out for yourself, because as I have told you a few times now, I place zero value in anything you have to offer.
You are simply wasting your time and everyone elses.
-
And continually try to make the case that forcing people to live on the liberal plantation is somehow "humane". I'll never figure that out if I live to a hundred!
Liberals are mentally ill. There's no point in trying to figure them out. All we can do is point out the liberalism and why it's dangerous so that others arent conned by the BS they drool out.
-
Liberals are mentally ill. There's no point in trying to figure them out. All we can do is point out the liberalism and why it's dangerous so that others arent conned by the BS they drool out.
And they call US boring. **nononono*
-
And they call US boring. **nononono*
They call us everything they can think of to deflect attention from the fact that they are failures. that their whole position/belief structure is based on a lie. It would be really entertaining if not for them being the most direct danger to constitutional governance there is.
When Lincoln said "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves," He wasn't talking about people standing for principle. He was talking about situational ethicists. AKA Liberals. I mean lets face it. People actively rah rahing the ideas and ideals of the left arent exactly patriotic. they are the problem. If they gave a damn about the Constitution, Constitutional governance or America, they wouldn't be out there actively pushing the very things America was built as a bastion against.
-
Kill obamacare, remove employer required medical insurance coverage, and eliminate the backdoor deals made between pols and insurance companies to only allow certain insurance companies to operate in certain states. Hello competition, hello reasonable health insurance costs.
-
Kill obamacare, remove employer required medical insurance coverage, and eliminate the backdoor deals made between pols and insurance companies to only allow certain insurance companies to operate in certain states. Hello competition, hello reasonable health insurance costs.
Yup and best of all, it really is that simple.
-
Kill obamacare, ...
Kill it with fire.
-
Kill it with fire.
It's too bad that the people (Doctors, businesses and patients alike) hurt by Obamacare can't prosecute/sue the people that forced it on them. RICO. Fraud. Theft of services. Pain and suffering. All sorts of charges could be applied. And the Liberals would not be so quick to try it again. Which of course they will once regaining the presidency.
-
Yup and best of all, it really is that simple.
Sadly, the American people wouldn't elect me dog catcher with that campaign promise. Too many Republicans are TOS style fauxservatives.
-
Sadly, the American people wouldn't elect me dog catcher with that campaign promise. Too many Republicans are TOS style fauxservatives.
I actually tried to get elected as a state rep here some years ago. What I found out was that most of those out there shoutin "truth truth tell me the truth" really don't want that at all. What they really want is for you to confirm what they already think and call that the truth.
-
That's my thought too. If they don't pull it up by the roots it will come back with a vengeance.
Exactly. This is a sham argument, a last-ditch effort to get the RINOs to leave it alone.
NO law "dies." Bad ideas live forever. We had Sin Taxes on tobacco, along the same time we were subsidizing tobacco crops. We've had EIGHT YEARS of trillion-dollar "Stimulus." There's still restrictions on car gas-filler necks to prevent pumping leaded gasoline in.
Thirty years after leaded gasoline disappeared.
This law needs to be repealed, cleanly and fast...or like the DDT ban, based on junk-science, like the cyclamate ban, which led to much-more-harmful saccarine being used...we'll be working around it and paying for it and bleeding ourselves white, with NO BENEFIT.
-
And continually try to make the case that forcing people to live on the liberal (government) plantation is somehow "humane". I'll never figure that out if I live to a hundred!
Oh, that's easy.
They get to be The Great and Powerful Oz!
Benefactor of all the little people who should do all they want them to out of fawning gratitude for their boundless wisdom. (Otherwise they turn and sic the winged monkeys on you!)
It's all part of their superiority complex.
-
To finish off the destruction of ObamaCare, all Trump and the GOP have to do is a whole lot of nothing….
Nobody is better at doing nothing than the Republicans
-
Because the ACA has indeed been a boon to many. Why not keep what's good and fix what's bad?
Care to list the "good" from the ACA?
Preexisting conditions requires the mandate or no one would buy insurance until after they need care.
As far as lowering costs for some - it is because it is medical welfare forcing other people to pay for their lower costs. The ACA didn't lower costs, it just further shifted the costs to the people who were already paying their way.
-
Kill it with fire.
And salt the ground !
-
Ever notice liberals here and elsewhere always talk about 'the groups that benefit from Obamacare" but rarely get specific? Thats because Obamacare benefits people like those that give them power. The gay lobby. The Muslim lobby.
That's simply too stupid and ignorant a comment to merit a response.
Care to list the "good" from the ACA?
Preexisting conditions requires the mandate or no one would buy insurance until after they need care.
As far as lowering costs for some - it is because it is medical welfare forcing other people to pay for their lower costs. The ACA didn't lower costs, it just further shifted the costs to the people who were already paying their way.
There are two primary groups that have benefited from the ACA:
- The working poor who (depending on the state) qualify for subsidies or expanded Medicaid. These include folks at small employers who don't offer health insurance, and folks working two or more part-time jobs, none of which qualify them for employer-provided health insurance.
- White males over the age of 50 who were laid off in the last recession. These folks, prior to the ACA, were stuck with COBRA, which is expensive and only lasts for 18 months. They often could not qualify for individual insurance, or couldn't afford such insurance, because of pre-existing medical issues. The ACA insurance marketplace has been a lifesaver for older males, because it allows them a bridge to Medicare at affordable rates (remember, a key ACA change is the 3 to 1 rule that requires insurance for older Americans to be priced at no more than 3 times the cost of insurance for millenials. Of course, that's the rule that has made ACA insurance a bad deal for healthy younger folks, thereby creating the current ACA "death spiral".)
DB, you're absolutely right about the need for the individual mandate - no private insurance system can survive for long if one needn't purchase insurance unless and until one gets sick. If that "fascist mandate" must go, then the obvious alternative will be single payer. Conservatives may well need to rethink their opposition to single payer. For example, if health care insurance is financed by means of general tax revenues, then employers will be relieved of the burden of running expensive health care plans, thus making the employment of Americans less expensive on the margin.
-
Oh, that's easy.
They get to be The Great and Powerful Oz!
Benefactor of all the little people who should do all they want them to out of fawning gratitude for their boundless wisdom. (Otherwise they turn and sic the winged monkeys on you!)
It's all part of their superiority complex.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
That's simply too stupid and ignorant a comment to merit a response.
There are two primary groups that have benefited from the ACA:
*clip*
- White males over the age of 50 who were laid off in the last recession. These folks, prior to the ACA, were stuck with COBRA, which is expensive and only lasts for 18 months. They often could not qualify for individual insurance, or couldn't afford such insurance, because of pre-existing medical issues. The ACA insurance marketplace has been a lifesaver for older males, because it allows them a bridge to Medicare at affordable rates (remember, a key ACA change is the 3 to 1 rule that requires insurance for older Americans to be priced at no more than 3 times the cost of insurance for millenials. Of course, that's the rule that has made ACA insurance a bad deal for healthy younger folks, thereby creating the current ACA "death spiral".)
Of course we'll never know how many more of these aged +50 are unemployed BECAUSE of ACA. I suspect its a significant number.
That is the nature of big government - create a problem then propose it's solution.
-
That's simply too stupid and ignorant a comment to merit a response.
Whats the matter Jazzy? Don't like what the mirror shows you? Or to be more precise, don't like other people seeing through your BS?
It's funny how often you resort to that catch phrase of yours when someone points out the truth.
-
That's simply too stupid and ignorant a comment to merit a response.
There are two primary groups that have benefited from the ACA:
- The working poor who (depending on the state) qualify for subsidies or expanded Medicaid. These include folks at small employers who don't offer health insurance, and folks working two or more part-time jobs, none of which qualify them for employer-provided health insurance.
- White males over the age of 50 who were laid off in the last recession. These folks, prior to the ACA, were stuck with COBRA, which is expensive and only lasts for 18 months. They often could not qualify for individual insurance, or couldn't afford such insurance, because of pre-existing medical issues. The ACA insurance marketplace has been a lifesaver for older males, because it allows them a bridge to Medicare at affordable rates (remember, a key ACA change is the 3 to 1 rule that requires insurance for older Americans to be priced at no more than 3 times the cost of insurance for millenials. Of course, that's the rule that has made ACA insurance a bad deal for healthy younger folks, thereby creating the current ACA "death spiral".)
DB, you're absolutely right about the need for the individual mandate - no private insurance system can survive for long if one needn't purchase insurance unless and until one gets sick. If that "fascist mandate" must go, then the obvious alternative will be single payer. Conservatives may well need to rethink their opposition to single payer. For example, if health care insurance is financed by means of general tax revenues, then employers will be relieved of the burden of running expensive health care plans, thus making the employment of Americans less expensive on the margin.
You cannot have single payer without massive taxation, and Americans simply will never sign on to that level of taxation.
Single payer is a dead issue.
-
I actually tried to get elected as a state rep here some years ago. What I found out was that most of those out there shoutin "truth truth tell me the truth" really don't want that at all. What they really want is for you to confirm what they already think and call that the truth.
Ain't that the truth.
-
I had a dear friend who was born in England and came over as a war bride (WW II). She made a life here and had a very good job as a bank executive. But she always had that nostalgia for England and decided to go back to be with family and be where health care was paid for and available.
It wasn't 3 months until I got a letter from her. So sad. Her family was not as supportive as she had hoped. She had been out of their lives too long. She sold everything she had to get over there and the health care was the worst. She could NOT get health care. It took her a year to save up enough to get back. She told me it was the worst mistake she'd ever made.
I lived in UK thirty+ years ago and recall the experience with healthcare.
One story I read about was a woman complaining of pain in her stomach. They found some forceps still residing there that were not removed during some abominable surgery she had years before.
Another one is an American couple I knew who came over as expats with some kids, one of which had a condition which was serious but treatable.
The child came down ill and was taken to the hospital for treatment. Drs said they wanted to keep him overnight for observation, but parents could not stay.
The next day they returned only to find the room their child was in empty. When they asked where he was, they were non-nonchalantly told that the boy had a seizure during the night and died.
No, we do not need government-run healthcare in this USA.
-
Every group in Britain benefits from their universal healthcare. They universally wait months for cancer treatments and such. Every man woman and child in Canada benefits from their socialist healthcare. thats why they USED to flood across the border to get treated in American facilities for cash.
Some people simply want liberalism. No matter who it kills.
When I lived in Britain as an expat, my wife came down with the flu and called the clinic for an appointment.
When she spoke with them, they asked whether she would be public or private. My wife asked why, and was told if she was public, then the next appointment she could make was two weeks to see the dr. If private, she could come in right away.
That is just plain awful, and being in the 'public' sure does not benefit those having private insurance.
-
Agreed, and this is why it's a mistake to say the US health care system is "the best in the world". It has it's good points, but a lot of bad ones too.
Actually, the US health care system IS the best in the world. That is born out to be true when any objective measurement is used. I do agree that NO system is perfect. However, free market capitalism is the closest that man can get to perfection.
The vast majority (99.9999999%) of the problems in the health care industry are directly attributable to government meddling.
-
This article -- like so many others -- completely misses the point on ObamaCare. The core of it is not the individual mandate. The core of it is the expansion of Medicaid, which essentially made health care for everyone an entitlement.
Actually, if you take it one step further you will find that the "core" of Obamacare is wealth redistribution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Kevz_9lsw
"Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional." -Donald Berwick
-
Part of the problem with health care costs in general has to do with the whole "insurance model" of medical care. There is no "free market" in medicine -- it's already controlled by large, inefficient, and intractable corporate bureaucracies. A single-payer system doesn't fundamentally change the economics of the current system, except probably to make it even less responsive.
Yes, but we must not forget that the current, or most recent, issues that exist in the insurance market are directly attributable to the HMO regulations that Ted Kennedy pushed in the 80's.
[/quote]
There is a good moral argument to be made for ensuring that everybody gets some basic and sufficient level of care. Probably the least intrusive approach would be some sort of means-tested subsidy for plans that meet some basic standards of service; and those subsidies are almost certainly best applied at the state rather than national level.
[/quote]
Exactly, but I would say that the moral solution to the moral argument of taking care of each other is that it be handled privately. The most effective organizations that help the downtrodden are private charities! Remember, that is how society created hospitals in the first place!
-
And salt the ground !
:amen:
Have I told you recently that I love you?
-
When she spoke with them, they asked whether she would be public or private. My wife asked why, and was told if she was public, then the next appointment she could make was two weeks to see the dr. If private, she could come in right away.
Isn't that the system being advocated by many? That those with means can pay, but that there's a safety net for all?
-
Why should Idaho's rules be trumped by a Federal rule that allows an Idaho resident to purchase insurance not sanctioned by the state of Idaho?
Actually, as a Citizen of the United States of America, I am free to buy any legal product from any state that has voluntarily entered into the union. This is the original intention of the Commerce Clause. States cannot restrict trade with other states. (Well, originally they couldn't, however in a post-constitution America, we see differently.)
-
I don't disagree, but believe that the ACA can be FIXED to address its worst failures. But if we're not going to enforce the "fascist mandate", then the alternative is single payer.
In other words, you are a progressive. Why else would you put fascist mandate in quotes? It is the government DICTATING to me that I MUST buy a product from a private company. If I am not free to NOT participate in commerce, then I am NOT free at all.
-
In other words, you are a progressive. Why else would you put fascist mandate in quotes? It is the government DICTATING to me that I MUST buy a product from a private company. If I am not free to NOT participate in commerce, then I am NOT free at all.
It's kind of like taxing breathing. Out of work - too bad pay up. Small business owner in hard times - too bad pay up. The government is so compassionate. The government should learn that no means no they don't get to screw the people whenever they feel like it.
-
It's kind of like taxing breathing. Out of work - too bad pay up. Small business owner in hard times - too bad pay up. The government is so compassionate. The government should learn that no means no they don't get to screw the people whenever they feel like it.
Did you watch the CNN debate between Cruz and Sanders? One small business owner asked Bernie how she is supposed to afford to insure her employees without increasing prices or lowering wages. He shrugged his shoulders and basically told her, "well, you won't like it, but I think you should have to buy insurance for your employees."
He offered no solution, just an empty suit shoulder shrug.
-
In other words, you are a progressive. Why else would you put fascist mandate in quotes? It is the government DICTATING to me that I MUST buy a product from a private company. If I am not free to NOT participate in commerce, then I am NOT free at all.
I put "fascist mandate" in quotes not because I am a "progressive", but because I was quoting another - the article linked to in the opening post.
Idiot.
-
I put "fascist mandate" in quotes not because I am a "progressive", but because I was quoting another - the article linked to in the opening post.
Idiot.
Same old same old. If you don't agree with me you're a "progressive". Blah blah.
-
I put "fascist mandate" in quotes not because I am a "progressive", but because I was quoting another - the article linked to in the opening post.
I appreciate your willingness to espouse and defend different viewpoints on various topics. While I often disagree with you, the give-and-take is nevertheless an opportunity to assess the clarity of my own views, and to correct them if needed.
There are some folks who aren't interested in even considering other points of view, much less discussing their differences politely.
Keep up the good fight.
-
I appreciate your willingness to espouse and defend different viewpoints on various topics. While I often disagree with you, the give-and-take is nevertheless an opportunity to assess the clarity of my own views, and to correct them if needed.
There are some folks who aren't interested in even considering other points of view, much less discussing their differences politely.
Keep up the good fight.
Here here...or hear hear. .. or here hear... or hear here...
Can't find a emot...
-
Ain't that the truth.
I recall a conversation in which i had proposed a simple, fair, and inexpensive solution to a problem to my State Senator. He just looked at me, shook his head and said. "That's a great idea, but they'll never go for it in Bismarck". "Why not?", I asked. He replied, "Because it makes sense."
He was right, they didn't go for it.
-
In other words, you are a progressive. Why else would you put fascist mandate in quotes? It is the government DICTATING to me that I MUST buy a product from a private company. If I am not free to NOT participate in commerce, then I am NOT free at all.
Well, that falls into line with Government forcing someone to sell something they don't want to to someone, which the poster supports also, only that only applies to mom and pop bakers and florists, not the K-street health care gang, which got the taxpayer funded out written in. In the end, a lot of people lost their insurance, for many of us, about the same time work dried up.
-
Here is the thing what happens if Obamacare crashes and burn say in 2021 and the Democrats is back in power?
-
Here is the thing what happens if Obamacare crashes and burn say in 2021 and the Democrats is back in power?
They're Democrats. They'll double down.
-
Here is the thing what happens if Obamacare crashes and burn say in 2021 and the Democrats is back in power?
Bingo. And the Dems know this quite well - voters have short memories. While the ACA was created on the Dems' watch, its demise on the Republicans' watch is what people will be weighing when they cast votes in 2018 and 2020.
Those who want the ACA killed and the ground salted forget that millions of Americans have benefited from it. Yes, it's true - and the question of what to do with it is complicated, and if the GOP can't unite behind a fix or a replacement, they will own the consequences of its demise.
The Dems won't lift a finger to help, just as we did nothing to influence the direction of the original legislation. The ACA represented a compromise between the far lefties who preferred single payer, and the blue-dog Dems who wanted to solve the access issue without uprooting the current employer-based system and while preserving the role of private insurance companies.
There IS a way to fix the ACA without harming most of those who've been helped by it, and ensuring that it can provide affordable insurance for millions more. The bones of the ACA are sound - marketplaces for "guaranteed issue" individual insurance exist in all 50 states. But the choices are dwindling, and the cost of policies are soaring, because of leftist notions of paternalism and redistribution that keep healthy, younger lives out of the individual insurance market. These flaws can be fixed, and fixed rather quickly and simply.
But the GOP can't be mesmerized by the salt-the-ground radicals for whom empathy for the less fortunate clashes with their severe notions of "Christian" virtue and "fascist mandates". "Christian" posters here have even made the ridiculous claim that the ACA has only helped gays and Muslims. Too much of the opposition to the ACA has been marked by this sort of blinkered idiocy.
In fact, the ACA has most helped the working poor and white males in their 50s. Yeah, it's hurt some folks as well - especially the self-employed - but that's why the ACA needs to be fixed - not abolished in a frenzy to return to the status quo ante where Americans' access to health care was at the mercy of the benevolence of their employers.
-
Bingo. And the Dems know this quite well - voters have short memories. While the ACA was created on the Dems' watch, its demise on the Republicans' watch is what people will be weighing when they cast votes in 2018 and 2020.
Those who want the ACA killed and the ground salted forget that millions of Americans have benefited from it. Yes, it's true - and the question of what to do with it is complicated, and if the GOP can't unite behind a fix or a replacement, they will own the consequences of its demise.
The Dems won't lift a finger to help, just as we did nothing to influence the direction of the original legislation. The ACA represented a compromise between the far lefties who preferred single payer, and the blue-dog Dems who wanted to solve the access issue without uprooting the current employer-based system and while preserving the role of private insurance companies.
There IS a way to fix the ACA without harming most of those who've been helped by it, and ensuring that it can provide affordable insurance for millions more. The bones of the ACA are sound - marketplaces for "guaranteed issue" individual insurance exist in all 50 states. But the choices are dwindling, and the cost of policies are soaring, because of leftist notions of paternalism and redistribution that keep healthy, younger lives out of the individual insurance market. These flaws can be fixed, and fixed rather quickly and simply.
But the GOP can't be mesmerized by the salt-the-ground radicals for whom empathy for the less fortunate clashes with their severe notions of "Christian" virtue and "fascist mandates". "Christian" posters here have even made the ridiculous claim that the ACA has only helped gays and Muslims. Too much of the opposition to the ACA has been marked by this sort of blinkered idiocy.
In fact, the ACA has most helped the working poor and white males in their 50s. Yeah, it's hurt some folks as well - especially the self-employed - but that's why the ACA needs to be fixed - not abolished in a frenzy to return to the status quo ante where Americans' access to health care was at the mercy of the benevolence of their employers.
I would love to see how many Americans have lost their coverage, are paying more for less, no longer have the doctor they were told they could keep, etc.
Frankly, I think that overwhelms the number of people who benefited, and those could have been taken care of at a lower cost than that dumped on everyone else.
With the departure of providers from the State here, that leaves one provider (BCBS) which used to just be prohibitively expensive (24K/year for a family of 4), and now is cheaper but covers even less.
And yes, the ACA caused my provider to depart the marketplace (they no longer write health insurance policies) after I had held a policy with them for over 20 years. Now, I have no insurance, and the ACA will fine me for that. Burn it, scatter the ashes, plow them in and salt the earth.
-
I would love to see how many Americans have lost their coverage, are paying more for less, no longer have the doctor they were told they could keep, etc.
Frankly, I think that overwhelms the number of people who benefited, and those could have been taken care of at a lower cost than that dumped on everyone else.
With the departure of providers from the State here, that leaves one provider (BCBS) which used to just be prohibitively expensive (24K/year for a family of 4), and now is cheaper but covers even less.
And yes, the ACA caused my provider to depart the marketplace (they no longer write health insurance policies) after I had held a policy with them for over 20 years. Now, I have no insurance, and the ACA will fine me for that. Burn it, scatter the ashes, plow them in and salt the earth.
You know it's not responsible to blow something up when it's possible to fix it. If that's the GOP's attitude, then it will be the recipient of the electoral consequences.
The Dems are smiling and treating the ACA now as the GOP's tar baby. I say it represents an opportunity to show our policy chops - the fixes I would propose are both simple and consistent with conservative principles. But if the salt-the-ground radicals like you want your pyrrhic victory, don't say I didn't warn you.
-
Bingo. And the Dems know this quite well - voters have short memories. While the ACA was created on the Dems' watch, its demise on the Republicans' watch is what people will be weighing when they cast votes in 2018 and 2020.
Those who want the ACA killed and the ground salted forget that millions of Americans have benefited from it. Yes, it's true - and the question of what to do with it is complicated, and if the GOP can't unite behind a fix or a replacement, they will own the consequences of its demise.
The Dems won't lift a finger to help, just as we did nothing to influence the direction of the original legislation. The ACA represented a compromise between the far lefties who preferred single payer, and the blue-dog Dems who wanted to solve the access issue without uprooting the current employer-based system and while preserving the role of private insurance companies.
There IS a way to fix the ACA without harming most of those who've been helped by it, and ensuring that it can provide affordable insurance for millions more. The bones of the ACA are sound - marketplaces for "guaranteed issue" individual insurance exist in all 50 states. But the choices are dwindling, and the cost of policies are soaring, because of leftist notions of paternalism and redistribution that keep healthy, younger lives out of the individual insurance market. These flaws can be fixed, and fixed rather quickly and simply.
But the GOP can't be mesmerized by the salt-the-ground radicals for whom empathy for the less fortunate clashes with their severe notions of "Christian" virtue and "fascist mandates". "Christian" posters here have even made the ridiculous claim that the ACA has only helped gays and Muslims. Too much of the opposition to the ACA has been marked by this sort of blinkered idiocy.
In fact, the ACA has most helped the working poor and white males in their 50s. Yeah, it's hurt some folks as well - especially the self-employed - but that's why the ACA needs to be fixed - not abolished in a frenzy to return to the status quo ante where Americans' access to health care was at the mercy of the benevolence of their employers.
That's mostly true, however, if you are pointing at other conservatives, dismembering fetuses from limb to limb as you promote is not a conservative value either, if one is being so critical of "Christians" and their values.
-
That's mostly true, however, if you are pointing at other conservatives, dismembering fetuses from limb to limb as you promote is not a conservative value either, if one is being so critical of "Christians" and their values.
When have I ever defended or promoted the practice of abortion, TomSea? I have consistently denounced it as a moral wrong.
My position on the matter is that it is fruitless and self-defeating to seek to ban abortion in light of the choice right enjoyed by every American woman for over 40 years. That genie, for better or worse, is out of the bottle. Instead, pro-lifers should focus their efforts on persuasion, not coercion. That is the proven way to save lives.
-
Yeah, it's hurt some folks as well - especially the self-employed - but that's why the ACA needs to be fixed - not abolished in a frenzy to return to the status quo ante where Americans' access to health care was at the mercy of the benevolence of their employers.
Thanks for acknowledging this much, at least. My wife and I, in our 50s, with one kid still living at home, are starting our second year health insurance free thanks to this wonderful act of government.
So you'll forgive give me if I read your words of praise for the ACA with just a bit of irony.
-
Thanks for acknowledging this much, at least. My wife and I, in our 50s, with one kid still living at home, are starting our second year health insurance free thanks to this wonderful act of government.
So you'll forgive give me if I read your words of praise for the ACA with just a bit of irony.
As a sort of welfare, virtually the only people it helped were those without insurance but at the same time, the percentages of those not covered by insurance in the country has not significantly changed.
-
As a sort of welfare, virtually the only people it helped were those without insurance but at the same time, the percentages of those not covered by insurance in the country has not significantly changed.
The ACA simply shifted a good chunk of private wealth from self-sufficient taxpayers to government's client groups.
-
The ACA simply shifted a good chunk of private wealth from self-sufficient taxpayers to government's client groups.
What are you talking about? The ACA was designed to provide options for the working poor. It bothers me when I read posts (I'm not talking about your posts specifically, skeeter) from the "Christians" here that suggest the working poor lack virtue and the community has no moral obligation to provide them a way to obtain affordable health coverage.
-
What are you talking about? The ACA was designed to provide options for the working poor. It bothers me when I read posts (I'm not talking about your posts specifically, skeeter) from the "Christians" here that suggest the working poor lack virtue and the community has no moral obligation to provide them a way to obtain affordable health coverage.
Moral obligation?? I disagree. I am NOT obligated, nor is it my responsibility to support someone else's health care coverage. Secondly the problem with the ACA is that in many cases it is not affordable and many have lost health care benefits not to mention their jobs or reduction in hours. So ... by your logic, ACA forces employers to reduce their work force, making it more difficult for those with reduced hours to afford healthcare, but because my hubby and I have health care through our employer (which we pay for), I am now obligated to help those with reduced hours because of ACA pay for it?? B.S.
For one, we need to stop providing medical benefits to ILLEGALS; that will greatly reduce the cost of health insurance. Secondly, we need to provide tax incentives to those employers who provide health insurance as an option to their employees, not penalize them for not providing health insurance. Open up the marketplace instead of closing it up like the ACA has done.
Also, I've never seen the logic in penalizing the people who can't afford health insurance at tax time ... let's take money away from them because they don't have money for health insurance?? Where's the morality in that one?
The ACA was nothing more than a tax and had very little to do with making health insurance affordable! Get real.
-
What are you talking about? The ACA was designed to provide options for the working poor. It bothers me when I read posts (I'm not talking about your posts specifically, skeeter) from the "Christians" here that suggest the working poor lack virtue and the community has no moral obligation to provide them a way to obtain affordable health coverage.
Leaving aside your jab at "christians" and the other non-sequitur, are you really suggesting that the poor in America had no health care options or didn't have access to health care services prior to ACA?
Because if they did (and you know they did) then the insurance argument is simply a red herring.
-
Leaving aside your jab at "christians" and the other non-sequitur, are you really suggesting that the poor in America had no health care options or didn't have access to health care services prior to ACA?
The non-working poor largely qualified for Medicaid. The problem addressed by the ACA was health coverage for the working poor - those who work for companies too small to offer group health coverage, or those working part-time at multiple jobs who don't qualify for employer-sponsored group health coverage. Remember, the root of the dilemma addressed by the ACA is the unique way our health insurance system is mostly organized - it is employer-based. If you lose you job, if you work for the wrong employer, or you're forced to work multiple jobs - you're screwed.
Such working poor do not lack virtue!
-
The non-working poor largely qualified for Medicaid. The problem addressed by the ACA was health coverage for the working poor - those who work for companies too small to offer group health coverage, or those working part-time at multiple jobs who don't qualify for employer-sponsored group health coverage. Remember, the root of the dilemma addressed by the ACA is the unique way our health insurance system is mostly organized - it is employer-based. If you lose you job, if you work for the wrong employer, or you're forced to work multiple jobs - you're screwed.
Such working poor do not lack virtue!
Your comment about the poor not lacking virtue is a straw man.
How about answering my question; did the poor - working and otherwise - not have access to healthcare before ACA?
-
The ACA simply shifted a good chunk of private wealth from self-sufficient taxpayers to government's client groups.
That is the truth. It redistributed income/wealth from the responsible working middle-class without their consent, to the poor.
Oh, and if government involvement and regulation hadn't added enough cost and complication to health care/insurance it added much more.
I do not happen to believe that health insurance is a right. So I say roll the entire thing, back to a point that people buy insurance if they or their employer can afford it. Period.
Government sponsored hospitals can provide minimal, basic and emergency care to those unable to afford insurance or pay their own health care costs.
That worked for my parents raising five children, and for my wife's parents raising six children.
The result of 60 years of government subsidies to the lower rungs of society, has been to make them less responsible, because the negative consequences have all but been removed.
The so-called "poor" often turn out to live better, than the working middle-class.
And these so-called "poor" have learned to keep electing the same political interests, who keep them living better than the working middle class.
Those political interests publish deceptive statistics for employment, for inflation for cost-of--living, etc.
And they blame the very providers of the funds for their folly.
Guess what? Voters talked back last November. No more silent majority while politicians picked their pockets, while calling them names, demeaning their careers, their families, their values, lives, etc.
All I see in this healthcare discussion is words. No numbers. But insurance is a game of numbers. Premiums, deductibles, actuarial tables, experience and modifiers. All absent, instead left to play on emotions.
Simply stated, Obamacare promised it would save money, and it failed. That is the empirical result.
There is a saying" "you can't make chicken salad, out of chicken shite."
-
Your comment about the poor not lacking virtue is a straw man.
How about answering my question; did the poor - working and otherwise - not have access to healthcare before ACA?
Could they go to the emergency room? Yes. Did they have effective access to healthcare of the same quality as those fortunate to have employer-provided group health insurance? No.
There is a vast gulf in medical outcomes between those fortunate enough to have health insurance and those who do not.
-
Could they go to the emergency room? Yes. Did they have effective access to healthcare of the same quality as those fortunate to have employer-provided group health insurance? No.
There is a vast gulf in medical outcomes between those fortunate enough to have health insurance and those who do not.
Now you're talking about quality of care. Thats an entirely new subject and one anyone seeking to defend ACA would be well advised to avoid.
-
Could they go to the emergency room? Yes. Did they have effective access to healthcare of the same quality as those fortunate to have employer-provided group health insurance? No.
There is a vast gulf in medical outcomes between those fortunate enough to have health insurance and those who do not.
What justifies exact equality of the quality of health care?
Do lazy people who drop out of school, use drugs and commit crimes, deserve to drive Mercedes like rich lawyers?
Then they would be "equal."
-
Your comment about the poor not lacking virtue is a straw man.
How about answering my question; did the poor - working and otherwise - not have access to healthcare before ACA?
(http://unashamedwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/skeleton-still-waiting-2.jpg)
-
(http://unashamedwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/skeleton-still-waiting-2.jpg)
See my post #140. And it is hardly a straw man to point out that too damn many conservatives - especially "Christian" conservatives - seem to think the working poor lack virtue and so their lot in life doesn't concern them. I am not advocating equality of care or equality of outcomes, merely equality of access in a system which is designed to favor those fortunate enough to work for employers able to provide them with group health insurance.
The working poor who are not so fortunate do not lack virtue and do not deserve your "Christian" scorn and contempt!
-
See my post #140. And it is hardly a straw man to point out that too damn many conservatives - especially "Christian" conservatives - seem to think the working poor lack virtue and so their lot in life doesn't concern them. I am not advocating equality of care or equality of outcomes, merely equality of access in a system which is designed to favor those fortunate enough to work for employers able to provide them with group health insurance.
The working poor who are not so fortunate do not lack virtue and do not deserve your "Christian" scorn and contempt!
Under communism, they stamped out religion. You sound like one, with the same tactic--ridicule those who have religious beliefs and practices, and use negative words like "scorn" and "contempt."
Appear to be looking after the "little guy" eg. the "working poor."
One reason that Trump won, is the fact people are fed up with intellectual elites, regulators and allocators, etc.
The intellectual elites just "know" what works, what is best. Pelosi is one. She lectures us to pass the bill, so we can find out what is in it.
A couple of times down that path, and folks wise up.
You are asking for another time, down that path. But you offer no facts, no numbers, no premium SAVINGS, no deductible figures, etc.
You ask for people to trust you--You Know What is Best.
-
See my post #140. And it is hardly a straw man to point out that too damn many conservatives - especially "Christian" conservatives - seem to think the working poor lack virtue and so their lot in life doesn't concern them. I am not advocating equality of care or equality of outcomes, merely equality of access in a system which is designed to favor those fortunate enough to work for employers able to provide them with group health insurance.
The working poor who are not so fortunate do not lack virtue and do not deserve your "Christian" scorn and contempt!
Well said. But really, it's not a matter of "virtue" or lack of it, in those without access to medical care. It's a question of what are the rest of us obligated to do about it.
One alternative would be for people to die in the streets, which I think most of us would be against. The other alternative is to provide the means for people to avoid such a fate -- in which case it all comes down to arguing about the price.
-
@Jazzhead
You know if the government would give me back some of my money, maybe I could help more folks. I'm not in favor of abdicating my Christian duty to help to the government there Robin Hood.
-
How about answering my question; did the poor - working and otherwise - not have access to healthcare before ACA?
@skeeter
That's not the whole issue, though.
We couldn't keep putting the burden on the ERs.
-
Idiot.
Really? Not properly interpreting your intention makes me an "idiot?" OK, gotcha.
-
I appreciate your willingness to espouse and defend different viewpoints on various topics. While I often disagree with you, the give-and-take is nevertheless an opportunity to assess the clarity of my own views, and to correct them if needed.
There are some folks who aren't interested in even considering other points of view, much less discussing their differences politely.
Keep up the good fight.
@r9etb Are you implying that I was not polite in my responses to you or to others? If so, that was not my intention and if you can direct me to what may be rude, I'd be more than willing to restate my position and I will try to make it polite to others.
Why did you leave off the part of @Jazzhead 's post where he calls me an idiot?
-
@skeeter
That's not the whole issue, though.
We couldn't keep putting the burden on the ERs.
True, but besides the EMTALA there are a multitude of health care programs for the poor & disadvantaged - Kerr-Mills, Medicare, Medicaid, Neighbor-hood Health Center Program of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Community Mental Health Center Act, the Migrant Health Act, the Children and Youth and Maternal and Infant Care Amendments to the Social Security Act, the National Health Service Corps, etc. Then there are the state programs.
The poor have not been deprived of healthcare in this country for decades. ACA isn't about that.
-
True, but besides the EMTALA there are a multitude of health care programs for the poor & disadvantaged - Kerr-Mills, Medicare, Medicaid, Neighbor-hood Health Center Program of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Community Mental Health Center Act, the Migrant Health Act, the Children and Youth and Maternal and Infant Care Amendments to the Social Security Act, the National Health Service Corps, etc. Then there are the state programs.
The poor have not been deprived of healthcare in this country for decades. ACA isn't about that.
Cannot be said too often or too forcefully!
-
The working poor who are not so fortunate...."
The vast majority of "working poor" are the young. They are just beginning their productive lives and as a result they have not accumulated the experience, knowledge or wisdom that makes their productivity (labor, intellect) worth the highest pay. In addition, they have not had time to accumulate savings, benefit from compounding or other ways of building wealth. It makes complete sense that the young would not be as wealthy as generations older than they are.
In addition, the same "working poor" are much healthier as a group, therefore their health care needs are exponentially smaller than those older generations that have had the physical tole of life ravage them physically for decades.
So, it is a double edged sword, the older one gets the wealthier they should be, yet they will need more medical services due to the physical wear and tear of life.
The ACA, with it's mandate, actually transfers much of the elderly's cost to the young. That is the point of the entire system. As a result, it is very effective at transferring money from the "working poor" to the wealthier generations. That is actually evil to the core.
Would you agree with me that we should not be transferring wealth from these young folks that are just beginning their working careers to the older generations that have had time to accumulate wealth?
-
Are you implying that I was not polite in my responses to you or to others? If so, that was not my intention and if you can direct me to what may be rude, I'd be more than willing to restate my position and I will try to make it polite to others.
Why did you leave off the part of @Jazzhead 's post where he calls me an idiot?
Eh, I just picked that particular one to reply to. Sorry to have upset you.
As to the "idiot" comment ... Considering the moronic crap that some people have been tossing at him on this and other threads, I cut him a little slack. The guy is honest about his beliefs, and willing to discuss them at length and in depth. I respect that.
-
Eh, I just picked that particular one to reply to. Sorry to have upset you.
As to the "idiot" comment ... Considering the moronic crap that some people have been tossing at him on this and other threads, I cut him a little slack. The guy is honest about his beliefs, and willing to discuss them at length and in depth. I respect that.
OK, thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.
I try very hard, and am mostly successful, to be polite here. However, there are times that I fail and do appreciate being reminded and allowed to make any corrections.
-
You know it's not responsible to blow something up when it's possible to fix it. If that's the GOP's attitude, then it will be the recipient of the electoral consequences.
The Dems are smiling and treating the ACA now as the GOP's tar baby. I say it represents an opportunity to show our policy chops - the fixes I would propose are both simple and consistent with conservative principles. But if the salt-the-ground radicals like you want your pyrrhic victory, don't say I didn't warn you.
Frankly, I have nothing to lose but a penalty for not having the damned insurance I lost because of the ACA. WTF are you going to take from me? My birthday?
-
Repeal - yes
Repair - no
Replace - no
-
Repeal - yes
Repair - no
Replace - no
Don't forget to add this to your cogent analysis:
Electoral defeat for the GOP and conservatives - yes
-
Don't forget to add this to your cogent analysis:
Electoral defeat for the GOP and conservatives - yes
Why? Obamacare was never supported by a majority and unless I've missed it the Dems aren't hanging their hat on poling showing how much everybody is enjoying their slavery under Obamacare.
-
Frankly, I have nothing to lose but a penalty for not having the damned insurance I lost because of the ACA. WTF are you going to take from me? My birthday?
If you'd stop hyperventilating, you'd recognize that I've acknowledged that among the collateral damage from the ACA was health options for the self-employed. I support fixing the ACA to address that.
My post was referring to the political consequences of the salt-the-ground position - it would be a electoral disaster for conservatives. But that's par for the course - conservatives, I'm afraid, love to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
-
If you'd stop hyperventilating, you'd recognize that I've acknowledged that among the collateral damage from the ACA was health options for the self-employed. I support fixing the ACA to address that.
My post was referring to the political consequences of the salt-the-ground position - it would be a electoral disaster for conservatives. But that's par for the course - conservatives, I'm afraid, love to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
So far you've identified two groups who support ACA a) the poor, and b) unemployed men over 50 (arguable).
Is this the unbeatable voting block that will throw republicans out of power?
-
Why? Obamacare was never supported by a majority and unless I've missed it the Dems aren't hanging their hat on poling showing how much everybody is enjoying their slavery under Obamacare.
I think @Jazzhead 's point -- and it's valid -- is that if Republicans repealed but did not repair or replace, the Democrats can build a very effective "Republicans want poor people to die in the streets" platform.
They're already going to be running against Trump, and "taking away basic health care from the poor" would be a great centerpiece.
-
So far you've identified two groups who support ACA a) the poor, and b) unemployed men over 50 (arguable).
Is this the unbeatable voting block that will throw republicans out of power?
You're surely not that naive about how such issues can be exploited in an election year that already promises to be heated.
-
You're surely not that naive about how such issues can be exploited in an election year that already promises to be heated.
We don't need to forecast how the issue will play with electorate, we've already seen it play out over the past two cycles.
And if you were paying attention you'll know it wasn't the ACA's supporters who came out on top.
-
We don't need to forecast how the issue will play with electorate, we've already seen it play out over the past two cycles.
And if you were paying attention you'll know it wasn't the ACA's supporters who came out on top.
Perhaps. More likely, you're just really naive.
-
Perhaps. More likely, you're just really naive.
I expected better from you.
-
I expected better from you.
And I from you. You're seemingly unable or unwilling to admit the truth of what JH is saying about the electoral uses to which the Democrats would put a refusal to replace or repair Obamacare.
It's a powerful tool that can be used to influence people who are already on the fence about Trump and the Republicans -- it's not just the old and the poor whose votes would be affected.
-
And I from you. You're seemingly unable or unwilling to admit the truth of what JH is saying about the electoral uses to which the Democrats would put a refusal to replace or repair Obamacare.
It's a powerful tool that can be used to influence people who are already on the fence about Trump and the Republicans -- it's not just the old and the poor whose votes would be affected.
How about the idea, that anti-Trumpers like you and JH have been wrong, all along.
So why credit you with suddenly possessing the source of all knowledge?
Besides, you have not even seen what the "replace" measure contains.
-
How about the idea, that anti-Trumpers like you and JH have been wrong, all along.
So why credit you with suddenly possessing the source of all knowledge?
It's called "discussion," son. It's only interesting and useful if people say and think differently from you.
Your version of "discussion" looks suspiciously like masturbation.
Besides, you have not even seen what the "replace" measure contains.
Immaterial -- the discussion is about the political impact of what happens when neither repair or replace are on the table.
-
I'd say since Trump and the Republican rode the promise of repeal to Washington they better give serious thought to doing what they said they would do.
I've been wrong on a lot of what Trump was going to do. It's not time to worry yet.
-
It's called "discussion," son. It's only interesting and useful if people say and think differently from you.
Your version of "discussion" looks suspiciously like masturbation.
Immaterial -- the discussion is about the political impact of what happens when neither repair or replace are on the table.
It looks to me like your idea of 'discussion' can also be called arguing for its own sake.
Its also a waste of time.
-
I'd say since Trump and the Republican rode the promise of repeal to Washington they better give serious thought to doing what they said they would do.
I've been wrong on a lot of what Trump was going to do. It's not time to worry yet.
All Trump can really do is sign the legislation. It's the Republicans in Congress who have the task of coming up with a way to actually deal with it in a way that doesn't kill them in 2018.
Any solution that can plausibly be painted as causing large numbers of people to be denied medical care, is bad news for all of us.
Of course, we've already seen that very thing with the millions who lost their existing coverage under the ACA and were faced with ruinous cost increases. But the media and Democrats were in "protect" mode back then; they're in attack mode, now.
People are nervous about Trump. If they stay nervous about Trump, then what the R's do on Obamacare is one club (not the only one) that can be used to beat GOP candidates over the head.
-
It looks to me like your idea of 'discussion' can also be called arguing for its own sake.
Its also a waste of time.
I find that I expect less and less of you as this discussion goes forward. Pity.
-
Once one realizes that the ACA was never about healthcare but getting as many people onto the government plantation as possible there needs to be very little discussion about whether or not to get rid of it entirely IMHO!
-
I find that I expect less and less of you as this discussion goes forward. Pity.
This 'discussion' was hashed, rehashed and settled some time ago when the numbers rolled in and Obamacare was shown to have increased costs, lowered access to functional healthcare, put some doctors out of business, caused others to retire, reduce the quality of what healthcare remained and caused more harm to the public than benefit.
Now the 'discussion' comes down to supporters of a liberal and disastrous policy trying desperately to convince sane people that you can in fact polish a turd.
-
This 'discussion' was hashed, rehashed and settled some time ago when the numbers rolled in and Obamacare was shown to have increased costs, lowered access to functional healthcare, put some doctors out of business, caused others to retire, reduce the quality of what healthcare remained and caused more harm to the public than benefit.
Now the 'discussion' comes down to supporters of a liberal and disastrous policy trying desperately to convince sane people that you can in fact polish a turd.
You understand that the discussion on this thread has become one about "what to do next," don't you?
Nah. Probably not.
-
You understand that the discussion on this thread has become one about "what to do next," don't you?
Nah. Probably not.
You do know that has long been addressed as well don't you? No, probably not. You just want to continue trying to stretch Obamacare out as far as it can go with 'fixes'.
-
Ya'll know our opinion here ain't worth spit in the bucket, right? The buzzards in DC are the ones that have to hash it out.
-
Ya'll know our opinion here ain't worth spit in the bucket, right? The buzzards in DC are the ones that have to hash it out.
Sure. But that applies to everything we talk about.
-
This 'discussion' was hashed, rehashed and settled some time ago when the numbers rolled in and Obamacare was shown to have increased costs, lowered access to functional healthcare, put some doctors out of business, caused others to retire, reduce the quality of what healthcare remained and caused more harm to the public than benefit.
Now the 'discussion' comes down to supporters of a liberal and disastrous policy trying desperately to convince sane people that you can in fact polish a turd.
It all comes down to this: if the ACA truly was a good deal for everyone, they wouldn't have to mandate everyone buy into it.
-
It all comes down to this: if the ACA truly was a good deal for everyone, they wouldn't have to mandate everyone buy into it.
Yup. And as that is the case, people insisting on saving/fixing it clearly aren't doing so for the benefit of the people it's supposed to 'help'. Obamacare cannot exist in any form without the mandate.
-
It all comes down to this: if the ACA truly was a good deal for everyone, they wouldn't have to mandate everyone buy into it.
Amen. :amen:
Socialism ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
-
Don't forget to add this to your cogent analysis:
Electoral defeat for the GOP and conservatives - yes
I think you forgot that a big part of the TEA party movement was about repealing Obamacare. That issue delivered the Congress to the GOP, perhaps more than any other single issue. Add that to your analysis.
I would wager the majority of the people you think benefited from Obamacare would not have been likely GOP voters anyway. The program was a giveaway for the Democrat base, by the Democrats, Passed by the Democrats, that lived through the unconstitutional actions of one man, a Supreme Court Justice. The 'fix' was so solidly 'in' that they left a severability clause out of the legislation.
In the meantime, those who had their doctors, who had decent insurance and now are without are waiting for the elimination of a bad program, not baling wire and duct tape to hold that mess together.
-
Amen. :amen:
Socialism ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
You betcha! They'll make you happy, if they have to do it at gunpoint.
-
This 'discussion' was hashed, rehashed and settled some time ago when the numbers rolled in and Obamacare was shown to have increased costs, lowered access to functional healthcare, put some doctors out of business, caused others to retire, reduce the quality of what healthcare remained and caused more harm to the public than benefit.
Now the 'discussion' comes down to supporters of a liberal and disastrous policy trying desperately to convince sane people that you can in fact polish a turd.
888high58888 :beer:
-
So far you've identified two groups who support ACA a) the poor, and b) unemployed men over 50 (arguable).
Is this the unbeatable voting block that will throw republicans out of power?
Well, now, that might be because he is too PC to mention the addicts (the ads are all over cable TV for 'addiction counseling' which 'might be covered by health insurance') and homosexuals (and addicts) who couldn't get health insurance over 'lifestyle issues', whether they have AIDS, HIV, or other serologically borne or STDs from that lifestyle. Those people were uninsurable under the old plans because of the outrageous risk factors associated with their choices.
Now the rest of America is picking up the tab for that 'insurance', while those of us who made more wholesome choices either have degraded health care or no insurance at all and are fined for not having it.
-
How about the idea, that anti-Trumpers like you and JH have been wrong, all along.
So why credit you with suddenly possessing the source of all knowledge?
Besides, you have not even seen what the "replace" measure contains.
But you are both making the same mistake about anti-trumpers deapite the evidence often displayed before you. These aren't people who didn't vote for Trump, not because they thought Trump was too Conservative, but because Trump was not conservative enough.. Do not make the mistake of again redefining the "Right" on the basis of what occupied that relative position in the General election.
Even here--especially here (because those who expressed such sentiment elsewhere were evicted), a strong contingent of people who did vote for Trump did so with grave reservations and only to prevent Hillary from winning, which without argument would have been worse.
This doesn't establish Trump as any paragon of Conservative virtue (If that is going to happen, he has to walk the walk, unfailingly), it just made him the barely lesser evil in an election with low turnouts. So don't assume that there wasn't a contingent who didn't vote for him because he wasn't Conservative enough. 11% of the popular vote in this state went third party.
The TEA party movement helped establish the GOP Congress, and largely over repealing the ACA.
-
It all comes down to this: if the ACA truly was a good deal for everyone, they wouldn't have to mandate everyone buy into it.
Very good point. Freedom of choice. All Americans should have it.
-
Very good point. Freedom of choice. All Americans should have it.
To which liberals say: "Not if they make the wrong choice."
-
The vast majority of "working poor" are the young. They are just beginning their productive lives and as a result they have not accumulated the experience, knowledge or wisdom that makes their productivity (labor, intellect) worth the highest pay. In addition, they have not had time to accumulate savings, benefit from compounding or other ways of building wealth. It makes complete sense that the young would not be as wealthy as generations older than they are.
In addition, the same "working poor" are much healthier as a group, therefore their health care needs are exponentially smaller than those older generations that have had the physical tole of life ravage them physically for decades.
So, it is a double edged sword, the older one gets the wealthier they should be, yet they will need more medical services due to the physical wear and tear of life.
The ACA, with it's mandate, actually transfers much of the elderly's cost to the young. That is the point of the entire system. As a result, it is very effective at transferring money from the "working poor" to the wealthier generations. That is actually evil to the core.
Would you agree with me that we should not be transferring wealth from these young folks that are just beginning their working careers to the older generations that have had time to accumulate wealth?
@Jazzhead I find it interesting that you didn't respond to this question. Perhaps I should have "@'d" you the first time. I know that you were getting a lot of direct responses and that can cause one to slip by. I asked the above in ernest, Can you and I agree that we should not steal from the working poor to redistribute their earnings to the more wealthy older generations?
-
@Jazzhead I find it interesting that you didn't respond to this question. Perhaps I should have "@'d" you the first time. I know that you were getting a lot of direct responses and that can cause one to slip by. I asked the above in ernest, Can you and I agree that we should not steal from the working poor to redistribute their earnings to the more wealthy older generations?
Hi CSM, thanks for your question. Speaking generally, the ACA targets two broad categories of individuals for most of its practical assistance - the working poor and folks over the age of 50 who've lost their jobs but aren't old enough to qualify for Medicare. The ACA addresses the working poor primarily by expanding the reach of Medicaid. As for folks over 50, the ACA both creates an insurance market for "guaranteed issue" coverage and prevents insurers from charging premiums for older individuals at more than a 3 to 1 ratio than the rates charged to younger individuals.
Since that 3 to 1 ratio is not justifiable from an actuarial perspective (I think approximately a 5 to 1 ratio is what insurers were charging before the ACA), you are correct that younger folks are subsidizing the premiums paid by older folks. Whatever you may think of such subsidization, the bottom line has been many younger folks have recognized the bad deal and are declining coverage at all (paying the ACA tax instead). The lack of younger, healthier lives in the ACA marketplace has in turn led to substantial premium increases for the sicker, older lives that have heretofore benefits from the ACA.
Two simple fixes, therefore, would be to abolish the required 3 to 1 ratio (as well as certain other ACA changes that keep the cost of policies high, such as the ban on lifetime or annual limits) and encourage more younger lives in the insurance pool by allowing employers to provide credits to health reimbursement accounts (that satisfy the employer mandate) to help their employees purchase policies in the ACA marketplace.
That's not, of course, all that would need to be done, but those simple reforms would go a long way to mitigate the current "death spiral" in the ACA marketplaces.
-
-snip-
The lack of younger, healthier lives in the ACA marketplace has in turn led to substantial premium increases for the sicker, older lives that have heretofore benefits from the ACA.
-snip-
Two simple fixes,......and encourage more younger lives in the insurance pool......
Just as an FYI, I purposefully isolated these comments to make your response more precise. I am not attempting to twist your words in any way.
In the first comment, you acknowledge that the result of government run health care is to redistribute wealth from the younger working poor generations TO the older wealthier generations. Then you follow that with a fix for the system and that fix is to "encourage" more of that redistribution.
That shows that your stated concerns for these working poor are not sincere. Your real concern is to maintain big government dictates in health care. That is what you truly want to protect, even to the point that it causes harm to the working poor.
-
Just as an FYI, I purposefully isolated these comments to make your response more precise. I am not attempting to twist your words in any way.
In the first comment, you acknowledge that the result of government run health care is to redistribute wealth from the younger working poor generations TO the older wealthier generations. Then you follow that with a fix for the system and that fix is to "encourage" more of that redistribution.
That shows that your stated concerns for these working poor are not sincere. Your real concern is to maintain big government dictates in health care. That is what you truly want to protect, even to the point that it causes harm to the working poor.
C'mon, CSM, play fair. Abolishing the 3 to 1 ratio rule will immediately lower the premiums that younger workers pay, because they won't be subsidizing older workers. Meanwhile, an effective means for employers to satisfy their own mandate requirements by providing cash to encourage employees to go to the ACA exchanges will bring more younger, healthier lives into the pool of insurables. Again, the bottom line is lower premiums as the risk is spread among a larger pool. That's insurance 101, not evidence that I'm not "sincere" in wanting the working poor to have affordable insurance.
Shouldn't you be supporting single payer, where insurance is paid for out of general tax revenues? If your concern is the working poor, that's the means by which coverage can be made most affordable, but letting the rich subsidize the poor.
-
but letting the rich subsidize the poor.
Ah, the old Socialist response to everything: Force those who are successful to pay for others who are not successful.
A genuine utopia until, as Margaret Thatcher reminds us, The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
-
Ah, the old Socialist response to everything: Force those who are successful to pay for others who are not successful.
A genuine utopia until, as Margaret Thatcher reminds us, The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
Lots of things are paid for by the "community" from general tax revenues - national defense, roads and bridges, old age pensions, medical insurance for the old and the very poor. The health care financing system we have now is rooted in the employment relationship, providing a tax incentive for employers to provide medical insurance to their employees in lieu of higher wages. It creates a number of distortions that have nothing to do with socialism - two folks may live next door to each other, with both earning the same wage, but one will lack medical insurance because his employer is too small, or he works multiple part-time jobs. Is that fair? Or is fairness something a "rugged individualist" and self-appointed expert on "conservatism" like you doesn't give a damn about?
While the knee-jerk "conservative" position may be to let the working poor suffer and fend for themselves, that itself causes the rest of us to subsidize the care the working poor receive, especially in emergency rooms. That cost is paid for by us in the form of higher insurance premiums because of higher charges by hospitals to cover the cost of uncompensated care.
Be careful when you charge "socialism" - we all get sick at one time or another, and the fortunate subsidize the less fortunate under just about any system you care to devise.
-
Lots of things are paid for by the "community" from general tax revenues - national defense, roads and bridges, old age pensions, medical insurance for the old and the very poor. The health care financing system we have now is rooted in the employment relationship, providing a tax incentive employers to provide medical insurance to their employees in lieu of wages. It creates a number of distortions that have nothing to do with socialism - two folks may live next door to each other, with both earning the same wage, but one will lack medical insurance because his employer is two small, or he works multiple part-time jobs. Is that fair? Or is fairness something you don't give a damn about?
While the knee-jerk "conservative" position may be to let the working poor suffer and fend for themselves, that itself causes the rest of us to subsidize the care the working poor receive, especially in emergency rooms. That cost is paid for by us in the form of higher insurance premiums because of higher charges by hospitals to cover the cost of uncompensated care.
Be careful when you charge "socialism" - we all get sick at one time or another, and the fortunate subsidize the less fortunate under just about any system you care to devise.
No, frankly I don't give a damn about fairness.
Where do you draw the line? I usually pay my own bills that's just part of my code. I don't mind helping people, but I sure as hell mind when someone wants to steal my money to "help" somebody else.
-
Lots of things are paid for by the "community" from general tax revenues - national defense, roads and bridges, old age pensions, medical insurance for the old and the very poor. The health care financing system we have now is rooted in the employment relationship, providing a tax incentive for employers to provide medical insurance to their employees in lieu of higher wages. It creates a number of distortions that have nothing to do with socialism - two folks may live next door to each other, with both earning the same wage, but one will lack medical insurance because his employer is too small, or he works multiple part-time jobs. Is that fair? Or is fairness something a "rugged individualist" and self-appointed expert on "conservatism" like you doesn't give a damn about?
While the knee-jerk "conservative" position may be to let the working poor suffer and fend for themselves, that itself causes the rest of us to subsidize the care the working poor receive, especially in emergency rooms. That cost is paid for by us in the form of higher insurance premiums because of higher charges by hospitals to cover the cost of uncompensated care.
Be careful when you charge "socialism" - we all get sick at one time or another, and the fortunate subsidize the less fortunate under just about any system you care to devise.
The first mistake you make is accepting that the federal government has a role in our private health care.
From there it is just big government statism options on how big government statism can achieve the results you seek. Picking winners and losers based on the "greater good" as viewed by those in power. Our government isn't supposed to be in the position of picking winners and losers. You are in the trees and have lost sight of the forest - a forest you shouldn't be in in the first place.
-
The first mistake you make is accepting that the federal government has a role in our private health care.
From there it is just big government statism options on how big government statism can achieve the results you seek. Picking winners and losers based on the "greater good" as viewed by those in power. Our government isn't supposed to be in the position of picking winners and losers. You are in the trees and have lost sight of the forest - a forest you shouldn't be in in the first place.
You fail to appreciate that liberty with respect to our private health care is a function of the rules in place for health care financing. There's no bar - never has been - keeping you from seeing the doctor of your choice. Except for the reality that you'll have to pay him. And for most of us, that depends on the quality of the insurance we have.
Disparities in medical outcomes is a function of the quality of insurance. For many, the current employer-based system continues to work okay, even as copays and cost-sharing seem to go up every year. But an employer-based system has distortions of its own - including tying folks down to jobs they don't necessarily want but hang on to for the insurance. On a macro level, that decreases job mobility and economic growth.
Notice I haven't even mentioned the dirty word "fairness" yet. But this isn't a matter of fairness between rich and poor - I know that as conservatives we can't be in favor of that. It's a matter of fairness between folks lucky enough to have a job that provides health coverage and those who are unlucky. That is, it could be you or me next week, next month, next year, who may be out of one of those lucky jobs and forced to work two part-time gigs with no coverage. And unlucky enough to get sick - because we'll ALL get sick at some point in our lives.
What are the sorts of things that the community typically provides to all and finances through general tax revenues? The common defense, roads, bridges and other infrastructure, Social Security in old age. Things we all use or need, at one time or another, whether we're lucky or unlucky in life.
Same thing with insurance for medical care. Consider the thought experiment posed by John Rawles - if you viewed the matter through a "veil of ignorance", not knowing your circumstances in life, not knowing whether you'd be have a job with health benefits or not, not knowing whether you'd be prone to disease or poor health, not knowing whether you'd have savings to address an unexpected emergency or be left to the mercy of others. What sort of health care financing system would you favor? A system based on the arbitrary circumstance of employment? Or a system based on everyone contributing their fair share to an insurance pool that offers security against arbitrary destitution?
Look, I'm an old man from an era when conservatism wasn't about selfishness. I've been advocating for a private insurance-based alternative to our employer-based system since before Obama entered politics. I supported Romney in part because of Romneycare. Now the ACA has discredited among conservatives the private insurance model for addressing access to affordable coverage, even though the basic idea has a conservative pedigree with its genesis in the Jack Kemp era. I may well be alone in thinking it can still work, and that the ACA's flaws are not fatal.
But the conservatism of my generation is denounced as liberalism these days, and it seems that no one's willing to even listen. But if today's conservatives can't or won't fix the ACA, we need to face reality - the only politically viable alternative may be single payer. Medicare for all, financed by general revenues.
-
Lots of things are paid for by the "community" from general tax revenues - national defense, roads and bridges, old age pensions, medical insurance for the old and the very poor. The health care financing system we have now is rooted in the employment relationship, providing a tax incentive for employers to provide medical insurance to their employees in lieu of higher wages. It creates a number of distortions that have nothing to do with socialism - two folks may live next door to each other, with both earning the same wage, but one will lack medical insurance because his employer is too small, or he works multiple part-time jobs. Is that fair? Or is fairness something a "rugged individualist" and self-appointed expert on "conservatism" like you doesn't give a damn about?
While the knee-jerk "conservative" position may be to let the working poor suffer and fend for themselves, that itself causes the rest of us to subsidize the care the working poor receive, especially in emergency rooms. That cost is paid for by us in the form of higher insurance premiums because of higher charges by hospitals to cover the cost of uncompensated care.
Be careful when you charge "socialism" - we all get sick at one time or another, and the fortunate subsidize the less fortunate under just about any system you care to devise.
The problems with this type of thinking is there is no end in sight. After $7 trillion dollars spent on the welfare state since LBJ, there remains even more working poor, more on foodstamps, and incentives to elevate these to other than poor do not exist.
Throwing more money at a problem does not improve anything but creates dependence.
What we need desperately is educate as forcefully as we strip money from hard-working Americans to make dependency for others.
-
Hard working Americans can find themselves facing ruin from medical expenses. This is not the false meme of the virtuous being forced to subsidize sinners. Those who lack access to health insurance often work harder than those who, by dint of good fortune, work for employers able to provide such insurance.
ISARFR, you and your family could be ruined by uninsured medical expenses just as surely as I can. This is exactly the sort of risk that deserves to be apportioned fairly and not on the basis of something as arbitrary as whether or not one is is lucky work for a large employer.
-
Hard working Americans can find themselves facing ruin from medical expenses. This is not the false meme of the virtuous being forced to subsidize sinners. Those who lack access to health insurance often work harder than those who, by dint of good fortune, work for employers able to provide such insurance.
ISARFR, you and your family could be ruined by uninsured medical expenses just as surely as I can. This is exactly the sort of risk that deserves to be apportioned fairly and not on the basis of something as arbitrary as whether or not one is is lucky work for a large employer.
There are two issues here, and it's important not to conflate them.
The first issue is how to deal with catastrophic medical expenses when one cannot, for whatever reason, afford insurance.
The second issue is how -- or whether -- to ensure that poor people have meaningful access to basic medical and dental care.
The underlying question is moral -- do we as a society have a duty to those who cannot afford medical care or insurance? I think the answer is yes, and the discussion is actually just about ways and means.
-
Individual liberty and personal responsibility are inextricably linked together! You CANNOT have one without the other!
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money!"
Maggie Thatcher
She could not have been any more right!
-
There are two issues here, and it's important not to conflate them.
The first issue is how to deal with catastrophic medical expenses when one cannot, for whatever reason, afford insurance.
The second issue is how -- or whether -- to ensure that poor people have meaningful access to basic medical and dental care.
The underlying question is moral -- do we as a society have a duty to those who cannot afford medical care or insurance? I think the answer is yes, and the discussion is actually just about ways and means.
Well said, r9etb. I agree that a great nation such as ours has a moral obligation to do something more than consign the poor to medical neglect and emergency rooms. And you've correctly identified the two areas for which that moral obligation exists - basic medical care and catastrophic care. As you may know, the ACA addresses the former by requiring insurance to cover annual check-ups and many preventive medications free of charge. Whether you agree with that approach or not, the idea is not only to provide everyone with access to basic medical care, but to encourage folks to see a doctor before a nascent medical condition becomes more serious - and expensive.
The approaches to financing basic care and catastrophic care can and should be different. Perhaps basic medical care can be provided by single payer insurance financed by general tax revenues. Persons could supplement such basic coverage through private insurance in a marketplace that offers a variety of choices. Or choose to forego supplemental insurance and pay for care out of one's own pocket, perhaps up to a dollar limit above which a form of "stop loss" insurance would kick in.
There are a variety of options, which I can perhaps address in future posts if folks are interested.
-
Hard working Americans can find themselves facing ruin from medical expenses. This is not the false meme of the virtuous being forced to subsidize sinners. Those who lack access to health insurance often work harder than those who, by dint of good fortune, work for employers able to provide such insurance.
ISARFR, you and your family could be ruined by uninsured medical expenses just as surely as I can. This is exactly the sort of risk that deserves to be apportioned fairly and not on the basis of something as arbitrary as whether or not one is is lucky work for a large employer.
Obamacare cost me my insurance, so now I get to pick up the tab for any medical care out of pocket AND pay the penalty, too.
You see, I just checked the cheap plan available in my state for my family, just out of curiosity. It's over 28K a year. That's with 14K in deductibles. For a family which usually spends less than 8K a year in health CARE costs (all out of pocket), that is a non-starter.
I had a high deductible plan that worked for me. this mess does not.
KILL IT NOW.
-
Obamacare cost me my insurance, so now I get to pick up the tab for any medical care out of pocket AND pay the penalty, too.
You see, I just checked the cheap plan available in my state for my family, just out of curiosity. It's over 28K a year. That's with 14K in deductibles. For a family which usually spends less than 8K a year in health CARE costs (all out of pocket), that is a non-starter.
I had a high deductible plan that worked for me. this mess does not.
KILL IT NOW.
And salt the ground so it can never come back! Things like that are incompatible with F R E E D O M ! ! !
-
Obamacare cost me my insurance, so now I get to pick up the tab for any medical care out of pocket AND pay the penalty, too.
You see, I just checked the cheap plan available in my state for my family, just out of curiosity. It's over 28K a year. That's with 14K in deductibles. For a family which usually spends less than 8K a year in health CARE costs (all out of pocket), that is a non-starter.
I had a high deductible plan that worked for me. this mess does not.
KILL IT NOW.
I'm betting my 2017 healthcare costs, copay plus deductible, will not exceed the $17k my plan's premium alone would have cost me this year, so will pay out of pocket as well.
KILL the ACA mess now.
-
As you may know, the ACA addresses the former by requiring insurance to cover annual check-ups and many preventive medications free of charge. Whether you agree with that approach or not, the idea is not only to provide everyone with access to basic medical care, but to encourage folks to see a doctor before a nascent medical condition becomes more serious - and expensive.
Even if one agrees with the idea, the details are important. As a practical matter the ACA has failed to achieve the goal. The statistics I've seen suggest that Obamacare made few improvements to actual access, and probably made it worse. Even if one is "covered," it is often difficult or impossible to find a doctor within reach who will accept the coverage, for the simple reason that Medicaid is a significant money-loser for them. One yardstick -- ER usage for routine medical issues -- is apparently no better and sometimes worse in many locations.
The approaches to financing basic care and catastrophic care can and should be different. Perhaps basic medical care can be provided by single payer insurance financed by general tax revenues. Persons could supplement such basic coverage through private insurance in a marketplace that offers a variety of choices. Or choose to forego supplemental insurance and pay for care out of one's own pocket, perhaps up to a dollar limit above which a form of "stop loss" insurance would kick in.
I'm against the single-payer idea for the simple reason that it doesn't actually work. Medicare and Medicaid are essentially "single-payer" systems, and the tremendous regulation, overhead, and minimal payments are such that doctors either limit or altogether avoid people under those plans. Plus which, the "tax as you go" approach is fiscally unsustainable and will become moreso as the ratio of beneficiaries to taxpayers continues to increase.
The House GOP plan apparently approaches the problem by offering so-called "tax credits," which is perhaps a fancy way of saying "means-tested subsidies" that can be used for premiums or HSAs. If these can be applied with minimal regulatory overhead then I think it's not perfect but about as good as can be expected.
-
And salt the ground so it can never come back! Things like that are incompatible with F R E E D O M ! ! !
Dying while waiting in line at an emergency room is freedom too. Honestly, the narrow-minded selfishness of some here astonishes me. Bigun, you're old enough to be eligible for Medicare - congratulations, you're the lucky recipient of single payer! Let the poor enjoy their "freedom" to get sick and die while you enjoy your socialist utopia. Flippin' phony you are.
-
Dying while waiting in line at an emergency room is freedom too. Honestly, the narrow-minded selfishness of some here astonishes me. Bigun, you're old enough to be eligible for Medicare - congratulations, you're the lucky recipient of single payer! Let the poor enjoy their "freedom" to get sick and die while you enjoy your socialist utopia. Flippin' phony you are.
There are so many "conservatives" on medicare and social security and they will all say "we paid into it our whole life". Well I'm paying for government largess too! gimmedat!
Tired of the hypocrisy as well.
-
There are so many "conservatives" on medicare and social security and they will all say "we paid into it our whole life". Well I'm paying for government largess too! gimmedat!
Tired of the hypocrisy as well.
BOTH of you are full of CACA! I spent a lifetime trying to make a deal with the government whereby they would just keep what they had already stolen from me in exchange for just leaving me the hell alone! They refused!
And furthermore I would be fine without either SS or Medicare! I'm NOT a socialist and never will be one!
-
BOTH of you are full of CACA! I spent a lifetime trying to make a deal with the government whereby they would just keep what they had already stolen from me in exchange for just leaving me the hell alone! They refused!
And furthermore I would be fine without either SS or Medicare! I'm NOT a socialist and never will be one!
I'm not directing this at you. If you support damping down Medicare and SS payments then you're not a hypocrite in my eyes.
I'm saying I have seen this opinion though.
GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY!
You're cool in my book Bigun.
-
Dying while waiting in line at an emergency room is freedom too. Honestly, the narrow-minded selfishness of some here astonishes me. Bigun, you're old enough to be eligible for Medicare - congratulations, you're the lucky recipient of single payer! Let the poor enjoy their "freedom" to get sick and die while you enjoy your socialist utopia. Flippin' phony you are.
Hyperventilate much? I can see why you are so concerned. What I found interesting was that the quote bot asked my age, sex, and whether or not I was a tobacco user.
Ditto for dependents.
What it did not ask that might materially affect the amount the insurance company shells out: Do you use or have you ever been addicted to IV drugs? Do You consume alcohol, and if so in what amounts? Do you engage in unprotected sex? Do you have multiple sex partners? Are you homosexual? BMI or such data?
Nope, none of that very relevant information for the purposes of underwriting risk was considered. Nor did it even ask me how much tobacco I consumed, how, or how long I had been consuming it. (Actually, I give smokeless tobacco credit for curing an undiagnosed ulcer forming at the junction of the duodenum and small intestine--a relative who had far better doctors found out that that was what caused his symptoms, which were identical to my own.)
-
Hyperventilate much? I can see why you are so concerned. What I found interesting was that the quote bot asked my age, sex, and whether or not I was a tobacco user.
Ditto for dependents.
What it did not ask that might materially affect the amount the insurance company shells out: Do you use or have you ever been addicted to IV drugs? Do You consume alcohol, and if so in what amounts? Do you engage in unprotected sex? Do you have multiple sex partners? Are you homosexual? BMI or such data?
Nope, none of that very relevant information for the purposes of underwriting risk was considered. Nor did it even ask me how much tobacco I consumed, how, or how long I had been consuming it. (Actually, I give smokeless tobacco credit for curing an undiagnosed ulcer forming at the junction of the duodenum and small intestine--a relative who had far better doctors found out that that was what caused his symptoms, which were identical to my own.)
I don't see what JH posts unless someone quotes it but since I have seen it He can stick his socialism where the sun doesn't shine! He has well and truly exposed himself for what he truly is and I, for one, want nothing further to do with him ever again!
-
Hyperventilate much? I can see why you are so concerned.
He may have overstated the case a bit, but the question of whether "freedom" for some, means that poor people can't get medical care -- that's a valid question. Do we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure access to basic medical care?
What I found interesting was that the quote bot asked my age, sex, and whether or not I was a tobacco user.
Ditto for dependents.
What it did not ask that might materially affect the amount the insurance company shells out: Do you use or have you ever been addicted to IV drugs? Do You consume alcohol, and if so in what amounts? Do you engage in unprotected sex? Do you have multiple sex partners? Are you homosexual? BMI or such data?
Nope, none of that very relevant information for the purposes of underwriting risk was considered. Nor did it even ask me how much tobacco I consumed, how, or how long I had been consuming it. (Actually, I give smokeless tobacco credit for curing an undiagnosed ulcer forming at the junction of the duodenum and small intestine--a relative who had far better doctors found out that that was what caused his symptoms, which were identical to my own.)
That looks like a consequence of regulatory overreach....
-
He may have overstated the case a bit, but the question of whether "freedom" for some, means that poor people can't get medical care -- that's a valid question. Do we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure access to basic medical care?
That looks like a consequence of regulatory overreach....
Which is the result of socialism EVERY single time it's tried!
-
Which is the result of socialism EVERY single time it's tried!
So, answer me a basic question: do we as a society have any moral obligation to ensure that people who can't afford it, have access to basic medical care?
-
So, answer me a basic question: do we as a society have any moral obligation to ensure that people who can't afford it, have access to basic medical care?
Tough question to answer.
Other tough questions:
Do we have a moral obligation to make people pay for other's healthcare, by force?
If we have a moral obligation to force other to pay taxes to pay for healthcare, what does it stop?
Are people responsible for any part of their own well being?
And so on and so forth...
-
Tough question to answer.
Other tough questions:
Do we have a moral obligation to make people pay for other's healthcare, by force?
If we have a moral obligation to force other to pay taxes to pay for healthcare, what does it stop?
Are people responsible for any part of their own well being?
And so on and so forth...
I notice you didn't answer the original question.
-
I notice you didn't answer the original question.
I said it's tough to answer.
That's the truth.
IMO I have no problem with forcing hospitals with providing life saving care. I think there is room for some government encouragement of health care through FSA's and such.
Ideally we'd all be responsible for ourselves of course. Politically speaking that's probably a nonstarter.
-
So, answer me a basic question: do we as a society have any moral obligation to ensure that people who can't afford it, have access to basic medical care?
That had been the law in this country LONG before the ACA ever came along and, as far as I can determine, still will be if the ACA is fully repealed!
Health CARE and Health INSURANCE are not the same thing!
-
He may have overstated the case a bit, but the question of whether "freedom" for some, means that poor people can't get medical care -- that's a valid question. Do we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure access to basic medical care?
That looks like a consequence of regulatory overreach....
Actually, they are just as free to go out and earn money and get their own damned medical care. The taxes I have paid paid for them, but so did the bills I paid out of pocket. Seven dollars for an aspirin? Really? I think that might have bought someone else a percocet or two.
It might have been far cheaper to establish means-tested 'free' clinics (not even necessarily a medical clinic, but a couple of hours of flat rate physician time a day) for the sniffles and clear the ERs of Medicaid patients and those who could only get health CARE by going to the ER, where they might wait a while, but would get served--only at greater expense.
No one is allowed to just bleed out in an ER because they can't find an insurance card. If you collapse with chest pains, you move to the head of the line. That's the way it worked.
Those who could get medicaid did.
It's simple, don't make much and divest yourself of all but 10K of assets.
At my age, nevermind. I have greatgrandkids, and assets I worked my entire life for which I won't chuck to sign up for another government program. so whatever my income may drop to in a bad year, Medicaid is out. Not old enough for medicare, so that isn't an option, and I will spend 28K a year keeping the lights, heat, food in the cupboards, etc. before i spend it on something I MIGHT need, but would have a 14K deductible anyway. Fuhgeddaboutit.
Without a requirement for me to have the stuff, I wouldn't look twice--and it would not be marketable. I'm just less scared of the possibility of being handed a bill--or the penalty--than knowing I'd spend 2/3 of last years "income" pulled from savings to buy something I am unlikely to use.
If someone else wants more, they can damned well get out and earn it.
If it is a kid with Cancer call St Judes. Open a GoFundMe, there are many people out there, myself included who have donated to help folks who have been hit with unusual maladies or medical costs. But it is no longer a gift when it is required, when it is pulled from my pocket at gunpoint to hand to someone else, no matter how much they might be seen as deserving.
I can't give if the government takes it. Which not only robs me of my money, but the ability to perform acts of Christian charity as well.
-
Actually, they are just as free to go out and earn money and get their own damned medical care. The taxes I have paid paid for them, but so did the bills I paid out of pocket. Seven dollars for an aspirin? Really? I think that might have bought someone else a percocet or two.
It might have been far cheaper to establish means-tested 'free' clinics (not even necessarily a medical clinic, but a couple of hours of flat rate physician time a day) for the sniffles and clear the ERs of Medicaid patients and those who could only get health CARE by going to the ER, where they might wait a while, but would get served--only at greater expense.
No one is allowed to just bleed out in an ER because they can't find an insurance card. If you collapse with chest pains, you move to the head of the line. That's the way it worked.
Those who could get medicaid did.
It's simple, don't make much and divest yourself of all but 10K of assets.
At my age, nevermind. I have greatgrandkids, and assets I worked my entire life for which I won't chuck to sign up for another government program. so whatever my income may drop to in a bad year, Medicaid is out. Not old enough for medicare, so that isn't an option, and I will spend 28K a year keeping the lights, heat, food in the cupboards, etc. before i spend it on something I MIGHT need, but would have a 14K deductible anyway. Fuhgeddaboutit.
Without a requirement for me to have the stuff, I wouldn't look twice--and it would not be marketable. I'm just less scared of the possibility of being handed a bill--or the penalty--than knowing I'd spend 2/3 of last years "income" pulled from savings to buy something I am unlikely to use.
If someone else wants more, they can damned well get out and earn it.
If it is a kid with Cancer call St Judes. Open a GoFundMe, there are many people out there, myself included who have donated to help folks who have been hit with unusual maladies or medical costs. But it is no longer a gift when it is required, when it is pulled from my pocket at gunpoint to hand to someone else, no matter how much they might be seen as deserving.
I can't give if the government takes it. Which not only robs me of my money, but the ability to perform acts of Christian charity as well.
Which brings us right back to the point that has been made several times already by several different posters. The ACA is not about healthcare to begin with! It is ALL about cradle to grave control of YOU!
-
Which brings us right back to the point that has been made several times already by several different posters. The ACA is about healthcare to begin with! It is ALL about cradle to grave control of YOU!
Typical of Congress, the title is misleading. It wasn't "Affordable", had jack-all to do with "Care", it was just an Act.
It was an insurance scam from the git-go, and a control device all the way.
-
He may have overstated the case a bit, but the question of whether "freedom" for some, means that poor people can't get medical care -- that's a valid question. Do we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure access to basic medical care?
Food, housing, cellphones, Insurance, wifi, cars, jobs, college, labradoodles, Pappy Van Winkle...
Got to draw the line somewhere.
-
That had been the law in this country LONG before the ACA ever came along and, as far as I can determine, still will be if the ACA is fully repealed!
Health CARE and Health INSURANCE are not the same thing!
So your answer to my question would be ... yes?
-
So your answer to my question would be ... yes?
Actually I didn't say that did I?
MY personal answer would be no! But I'm not a socialist!
-
C'mon, CSM, play fair. Abolishing the 3 to 1 ratio rule will immediately lower the premiums that younger workers pay, because they won't be subsidizing older workers. Meanwhile, an effective means for employers to satisfy their own mandate requirements by providing cash to encourage employees to go to the ACA exchanges will bring more younger, healthier lives into the pool of insurables. Again, the bottom line is lower premiums as the risk is spread among a larger pool. That's insurance 101, not evidence that I'm not "sincere" in wanting the working poor to have affordable insurance.
Shouldn't you be supporting single payer, where insurance is paid for out of general tax revenues? If your concern is the working poor, that's the means by which coverage can be made most affordable, but letting the rich subsidize the poor.
First, I am playing fair. You claim to be concerned about the "working poor," however the realities and results of big government programs brings harm to those people. It happens every time, no matter the program. Progressives therefore only use the term in order to advance their own preferred big government programs, they use the term "working poor" as an emotional hammer. It isn't about real concern.
If it were about real concern, then you would not be advocating the very thing that I showed you actually harms the working poor. Instead, you just keep advancing an agenda that conforms to your own preferred big government program. You can try to twist and turn the language, but the fact will remain that entire objective of big government health insurance is to redistribute wealth. It just so happens to steal from the younger generations (poor) to give to the older generations (rich.)
Second, no I would never advocate single payer, or any such thing. You are offering a false narrative that our only choice is between fixing the ACA and going to single payer. That is a false choice from someone that has no faith in man and turns to the government to solve all of life's ills. The fact of the matter is that we would have an unlimited number of options, if we were to let the market work.
Third, I never said that the working poor was my concern. You used them to advance your agenda, which is very typical of utopians. I showed you how your concern is false and your response is saying that my concern for them is false. Hence, you have proven my very point.
Finally, you also seem to be conflating Health Insurance with actual Medical Care. I will concede that many other societies have better rates of "insurance," however I assure you that our society offers the broadest and most comprehensive medical care. Our survival rates from disease are the best in the world, we have the broadest coverage of services in the world, we have the most medicines available, and on and on and on. The best way to "knock America down a notch" is to continue down the path of centralizing the health insurance market.
-
I said it's tough to answer.
That's the truth.
Actually, my specific question is only tough to answer if your answer is "no."
It's actually easy to answer "yes." But in that case the hard part is, of course, to figure out the best way of discharging the moral obligation -- especially when it includes people whose own bad behavior contributes to their ill-health.
-
Actually I didn't say that did I?
MY personal answer would be no! But I'm not a socialist!
How nice that you're not a socialist.
So your answer is that as a society we have no moral obligation to help those who cannot afford basic health care.
-
Food, housing, cellphones, Insurance, wifi, cars, jobs, college, labradoodles, Pappy Van Winkle...
Got to draw the line somewhere.
So if you saw a sick kid without the necessary access to medical care ... let's make it a chronic condition. Where do you draw the line with her? Let her die?
-
How nice that you're not a socialist.
So your answer is that as a society we have no moral obligation to help those who cannot afford basic health care.
That's right! That's what Churches are for! The government has no role what-so-ever!
-
Or is fairness something a "rugged individualist" and self-appointed expert on "conservatism" like you doesn't give a damn about?
Be careful when you charge "socialism" - we all get sick at one time or another, and the fortunate subsidize the less fortunate under just about any system you care to devise.
Of course we all care about fairness. The difference is that you believe in fairness of outcome, and I believe in fairness under the law and fairness of opportunity. Fairness of outcome leads to "equal misery for all" while fairness of opportunity lifts entire societies. Do you know where everything is fair in outcome for 99% of the folks in their societies? There are many on the continent of Africa, or you could research N. Korea, Cuba or Venezuala. Personally, I want people to thrive, not to suffer.
Then you use the term "the fortunate" that subsidize the "less fortunate." Your language is filled with progressive speak. I actually find it rather sad that you're so trapped by something that is so very wrong. How about we use an example closer to home? I live in the Detroit metro area and I can tell you that the 50+ years of progressivism has absolutely devastated the black culture of what used to be one of the wealthiest cities in the world! Rather than learn from such examples, progressives will just continue to push the same policies to a wider and wider audience, then they will act surprised with more and more people suffer.
-
That's right! That's what Churches are for! The government has no role what-so-ever!
I asked, "as a society," do we have a moral obligation? You said no and yes in the same response.... but here you seem to be saying, "yes?" Or is it no?
-
Then you use the term "the fortunate" that subsidize the "less fortunate." Your language is filled with progressive speak.
Well, let me ask you the same question I've asked others: do we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure that people who cannot afford it, have access to basic medical care?
-
I asked, "as a society," do we have a moral obligation? You said no and yes in the same response.... but here you seem to be saying, "yes?" Or is it no?
The government should have no role! As individual citizens yes we do but only if we freely choose to participate.
-
You fail to appreciate that liberty .......
Look, I'm an old man from an era when conservatism wasn't about selfishness.
But the conservatism of my generation is denounced as liberalism these days,
You have absolutely no understanding of liberty. You can't. Given that Liberty is inextricably linked with responsibility, and that you want the gov't to assume all manners of responsibility for individuals, then you show that you have no understanding of the very concept.
I have to wonder if the "conservatism" you reference is from the Teddy Roosevelt era, perhaps Richard Nixon, or Ford. Just so you know, they were progressives as well. If you understood liberty, you would recognize progressivism immediately, no matter what letter they have after their name.
-
So, answer me a basic question: do we as a society have any moral obligation to ensure that people who can't afford it, have access to basic medical care?
It is your belief they do not?
-
You have absolutely no understanding of liberty. You can't. Given that Liberty is inextricably linked with responsibility, and that you want the gov't to assume all manners of responsibility for individuals, then you show that you have no understanding of the very concept.
I have to wonder if the "conservatism" you reference is from the Teddy Roosevelt era, perhaps Richard Nixon, or Ford. Just so you know, they were progressives as well. If you understood liberty, you would recognize progressivism immediately, no matter what letter they have after their name.
Well said and I concur!
-
Which is the result of socialism EVERY single time it's tried!
Spoken by someone who gets both Social Security and Medicare. You, sir, are thriving as the result of big government socialism.
-
So, answer me a basic question: do we as a society have any moral obligation to ensure that people who can't afford it, have access to basic medical care?
One other thing: Do you believe it moral for someone who chooses not to work to have their medical paid for by others?
-
The government should have no role! As individual citizens yes we do but only if we freely choose to participate.
Damn, son. You just can't abide a straight yes or no answer, can you?
We have a moral obligation, but only if we decide for ourselves that it's an obligation? In other words ... that's no obligation at all.
So I'll put you down as a "no."
-
It is your belief they do not?
As stated above, I think we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure access to basic health care. Ways and means are open to discussion.
How would you answer the question?
-
Damn, son. You just can't abide a straight yes or no answer, can you?
We have a moral obligation, but only if we decide for ourselves that it's an obligation? In other words ... that's no obligation at all.
So I'll put you down as a "no."
That is what FREEDOM is all about son! Get that through your damn thick head!
-
Of course we all care about fairness. The difference is that you believe in fairness of outcome, and I believe in fairness under the law and fairness of opportunity. Fairness of outcome leads to "equal misery for all" while fairness of opportunity lifts entire societies. Do you know where everything is fair in outcome for 99% of the folks in their societies? There are many on the continent of Africa, or you could research N. Korea, Cuba or Venezuala. Personally, I want people to thrive, not to suffer.
Then you use the term "the fortunate" that subsidize the "less fortunate." Your language is filled with progressive speak. I actually find it rather sad that you're so trapped by something that is so very wrong. How about we use an example closer to home? I live in the Detroit metro area and I can tell you that the 50+ years of progressivism has absolutely devastated the black culture of what used to be one of the wealthiest cities in the world! Rather than learn from such examples, progressives will just continue to push the same policies to a wider and wider audience, then they will act surprised with more and more people suffer.
Your schtick is both boring and idiotic. I do not propose fairness of outcome - just some basic fairness with respect to access to health care insurance. The current system creates enormous and arbitrary disparities, not based on virtue, not even based on income, but on the sheer good fortune of working for an employer that provides good group health insurance.
-
That is what FREEDOM is all about son! Get that through your damn thick head!
"FREEDOM" means you don't have to shoulder moral obligations unless you want to? Got it.
-
"FREEDOM" means you don't have to shoulder moral obligations unless you want to? Got it.
Good! It's about damned time!
-
One other thing: Do you believe it moral for someone who chooses not to work to have their medical paid for by others?
The topic is access to health insurance by the working poor - many of whom work multiple jobs to survive but can't get health coverage. This is typical "Christian" conservative bullshite - claiming the poor deserve bupkis because they lack virtue.
-
Good! It's about damned time!
I've had your number for quite a while, Bigun. You don't think before typing and you don't think past the next insult. You're just a typical internet loudmouth.
-
Good! It's about damned time!
But you insist on sucking off the taxpayers' teat by cashing those SS checks and handing your medical bills off to the government.
What a flippin' hypocrite you are.
-
I've had your number for quite a while, Bigun. You don't think before typing and you don't think past the next insult. You're just a typical internet loudmouth.
I've had yours for awhile as well!
It's still a relatively free country and you are entitled to your opinions! No one has to share them!
-
The topic is access to health insurance by the working poor - many of whom work multiple jobs to survive but can't get health coverage.
Actually, no it's not. If we're honest, it's about access ... period.
It's pretty easy to say "yes" to the person who's working hard but still can't manage the expense. It's a lot harder to be charitable toward those who don't even try, for whatever reason -- and there are a lot of people like that.
I admit that I find it difficult to feel very sorry for the latter, although I feel a great deal of sympathy for their kids, who have no choice in the matter. For those who don't try, the moral question boils down to whether or not we'd be morally justified in letting them die of treatable conditions.
-
Actually, no it's not. If we're honest, it's about access ... period.
It's pretty easy to say "yes" to the person who's working hard but still can't manage the expense. It's a lot harder to be charitable toward those who don't even try, for whatever reason -- and there are a lot of people like that.
I admit that I find it difficult to feel very sorry for the latter, although I feel a great deal of sympathy for their kids, who have no choice in the matter. For those who don't try, the moral question boils down to whether or not we'd be morally justified in letting them die of treatable conditions.
There's a difference between access and buying it for someone. I think it's unfair I don't have access to a Ferrari. After all it's not my fault. Anyways I'm going back to my fainting couch to cry about all the things I don't have access to.
-
There's a difference between access and buying it for someone.
As a practical matter there's no difference.
I think it's unfair I don't have access to a Ferrari. After all it's not my fault. Anyways I'm going back to my fainting couch to cry about all the things I don't have access to.
That's beneath you.
-
Well, let me ask you the same question I've asked others: do we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure that people who cannot afford it, have access to basic medical care?
Society is an abstract. A construct. It has no obligations. it is a set of statistical parameters enforced by a legal system based on a groupthink.
It has no morals, only a consensus.
Morals are an individual thing, just as moral obligations are. When society removes the ability, the resources, and the freedom to follow my individual moral instincts, I have no choice, I can not exercise my personal judgement to feel obligated morally or not--instead, I become legally obligated, or, if you prefer, compelled. With compulsion any morals go out the window. It doesn't matter how good the thing I am compelled to do, I am still compelled.
If it were to be a moral act, I would have to be able to choose to do so or not do so, as my personal, individual, morals made me feel obligated. Without that choice I cannot 'give', because what I might have given has been taken instead.
If The Almighty wanted humans to be automatons, He could have created us that way. He could have made people creatures which could never even entertain doing other than His will.
He didn't do that; He gave us choice. As such, as an individual with the ability to choose a moral, immoral or no act at all, I can exercise a moral obligation--I can have a moral obligation because that is my choice. Compulsion negates that.
There are more vehicles than ever to get the money together to get little Johnny or Julie that operation they so desperately need. Entire communities of people will open their hearts and wallets, and from donation jars on the local checkout counter to fundraisers in the community to websites that bring people who are willing and able to help together with those who desperately need that help, to hospitals which will give medical care with no cost to the parents (because people have already donated), those who need help can get it. Even kids with cleft palettes (Smile Train) overseas, the sick in a multitude of countries (Medicine sans Frontiers), to a host of others like St. Judes Hospital for Children permit that obligation the individual feels to be fulfilled, whether directly or vicariously.
Forcibly taking money from those who may or may not have it in the name of helping those who allegedly don't is more Robin Hood antics on the part of the Left, and stifles the Liberty necessary for an act of charity to mean anything. Therefore no moral obligation is met by the individual. Only coercion.
As for this whole program, aside from forcing more people into situations often worse than they were in--the same productive people who feel moral obligations to help those who need that help, the point is that people who have or suffer from self-inflicted maladies from poor lifestyle choices seek to extract the money to deal with their problems, often exacerbated by their unrepentant behaviour, from others who have worked hard and led a less libertine existence.
That isn't a moral judgement, but medical fact.
If you aren't using IV drugs, sharing needles, or engaging in homosexual or other promiscuous activities, your chances of having a disease (HIV/AIDS) that will cost between $600,000 and $750,000 in the remaining (up to) 25 years of your lifetime for medical care and pharmaceuticals is greatly reduced. It is readily apparent, that for whatever reason that small percentage of the population (an estimated 1.3 million people) enjoys a disproportional influence among the halls of power in Washington, D.C., and those who might have had difficulty getting insurance because of their high risk lifestyles found a friend in the Democrat Party to make sure medical history was not considered, but have sold this among the general population as something to keep poor children from dying an untimely death from an easily treated childhood disease. Where have we heard that battle cry ("For the Childrennn!") before?
While this might benefit some poor people who didn't have insurance before, as to the "working poor", well, there are fewer of them, or they are working two jobs now, because of the negative economic impact of the ACA on small business, forcing employers to cut hours to below full time status because they can't afford to shell out another 2K a month for lower wage employees (effectively doubling wages). Those who have bitten the bullet and complied, expanded their businesses less because of reduced capital, or haven't been giving raises they might have because of the added expense, and some have just shut down entirely.
As usual, the unintended consequences raise their ugly heads.
Moral obligation? . I have one--to keep my family fed, keep the lights and heat on, keep them clothed, and see to their needs, first. If that sounds selfish, tough shit. It's no more selfish than the howling of people who would take the food out of my children's mouths to pay for their often avoidable maladies when the whole thing has left me not only unable to pay for insurance for my own family, but will take food off my table to punish me for not buying that insurance.
-
As stated above, I think we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure access to basic health care. Ways and means are open to discussion.
How would you answer the question?
No one is denied health care in this country.
-
Society is an abstract. A construct. It has no obligations. it is a set of statistical parameters enforced by a legal system based on a groupthink.
It has no morals, only a consensus.
Morals are an individual thing, just as moral obligations are. When society removes the ability, the resources, and the freedom to follow my individual moral instincts, I have no choice, I can not exercise my personal judgement to feel obligated morally or not--instead, I become legally obligated, or, if you prefer, compelled. With compulsion any morals go out the window. It doesn't matter how good the thing I am compelled to do, I am still compelled.
If it were to be a moral act, I would have to be able to choose to do so or not do so, as my personal, individual, morals made me feel obligated. Without that choice I cannot 'give', because what I might have given has been taken instead.
If The Almighty wanted humans to be automatons, He could have created us that way. He could have made people creatures which could never even entertain doing other than His will.
He didn't do that; He gave us choice. As such, as an individual with the ability to choose a moral, immoral or no act at all, I can exercise a moral obligation--I can have a moral obligation because that is my choice. Compulsion negates that.
There are more vehicles than ever to get the money together to get little Johnny or Julie that operation they so desperately need. Entire communities of people will open their hearts and wallets, and from donation jars on the local checkout counter to fundraisers in the community to websites that bring people who are willing and able to help together with those who desperately need that help, to hospitals which will give medical care with no cost to the parents (because people have already donated), those who need help can get it. Even kids with cleft palettes (Smile Train) overseas, the sick in a multitude of countries (Medicine sans Frontiers), to a host of others like St. Judes Hospital for Children permit that obligation the individual feels to be fulfilled, whether directly or vicariously.
Forcibly taking money from those who may or may not have it in the name of helping those who allegedly don't is more Robin Hood antics on the part of the Left, and stifles the Liberty necessary for an act of charity to mean anything. Therefore no moral obligation is met by the individual. Only coercion.
As for this whole program, aside from forcing more people into situations often worse than they were in--the same productive people who feel moral obligations to help those who need that help, the point is that people who have or suffer from self-inflicted maladies from poor lifestyle choices seek to extract the money to deal with their problems, often exacerbated by their unrepentant behaviour, from others who have worked hard and led a less libertine existence.
That isn't a moral judgement, but medical fact.
If you aren't using IV drugs, sharing needles, or engaging in homosexual or other promiscuous activities, your chances of having a disease (HIV/AIDS) that will cost between $600,000 and $750,000 in the remaining (up to) 25 years of your lifetime for medical care and pharmaceuticals is greatly reduced. It is readily apparent, that for whatever reason that small percentage of the population (an estimated 1.3 million people) enjoys a disproportional influence among the halls of power in Washington, D.C., and those who might have had difficulty getting insurance because of their high risk lifestyles found a friend in the Democrat Party to make sure medical history was not considered, but have sold this among the general population as something to keep poor children from dying an untimely death from an easily treated childhood disease. Where have we heard that battle cry ("For the Childrennn!") before?
While this might benefit some poor people who didn't have insurance before, as to the "working poor", well, there are fewer of them, or they are working two jobs now, because of the negative economic impact of the ACA on small business, forcing employers to cut hours to below full time status because they can't afford to shell out another 2K a month for lower wage employees (effectively doubling wages). Those who have bitten the bullet and complied, expanded their businesses less because of reduced capital, or haven't been giving raises they might have because of the added expense, and some have just shut down entirely.
As usual, the unintended consequences raise their ugly heads.
Moral obligation? . I have one--to keep my family fed, keep the lights and heat on, keep them clothed, and see to their needs, first. If that sounds selfish, tough shit. It's no more selfish than the howling of people who would take the food out of my children's mouths to pay for their often avoidable maladies when the whole thing has left me not only unable to pay for insurance for my own family, but will take food off my table to punish me for not buying that insurance.
Thanks for the long answer. My basic thought was: I ain't born with an IOU to every Tom Dick and Harry. But you said it much better.
Isn't funny liberals (the politicians NOT any members of this forum) say you can't legislate morality until they find a way to get our money in their pocket. Then they suddenly become the most saintly moralist.
-
The topic is access to health insurance by the working poor - many of whom work multiple jobs to survive but can't get health coverage. This is typical "Christian" conservative bullshite - claiming the poor deserve bupkis because they lack virtue.
No, you avoided the question. You ask about morality in giving the poor a government handout.
I asked you if it is moral to extract money from someone to pay for someone else unwilling to work.
And someone is not virtuous when they refuse to work and exist on govt handouts, nor is it virtuous to steal money to pay for someone else's lethargy.
Twisting words is what a lib does.
-
That's beneath you.
No, what is beneath him is the pile of s___ some are dishing out.
I wish to only voluntarily gives handouts to people, and do not wish it forcibly extracted.
-
No, what is beneath him is the pile of s___ some are dishing out.
I wish to only voluntarily gives handouts to people, and do not wish it forcibly extracted.
Do you voluntarily do so now?
-
Do you voluntarily do so now?
I do what I am free to do.
Conservatives do without coercing.
-
As usual, the unintended consequences raise their ugly heads.
Examples abound, but here is one example of giving money to bureaucrats for noble purposes that is misused.
Harvard Officials Accused of Stealing $100K of Funds Meant for the Disabled, Spent it on Sex Toys http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/01/harvard-officials-accused-stealing-100k-funds-meant-disabled-spent-sex-toys/
-
Do you voluntarily do so now?
I do. I'm a firm believer in helping people up with charity (it's not charity if I owe it to someone by the way; that's a debt). Food Drives, Toy drives, our church is involved in charity work. I don't do as much as I'd like, but I try to do as much as I can and teach my kids the same principle. We started a tradition during Christmas where we have the kids pickup out toys for the Toys for Tots program; I think it's a great way help them realize that the season is about giving.
My philosphy in a nutshell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHaJegv6Sjs
To use an example that people often misunderstand: Srooge from the Christmas Carol thought that if he turned his responsibility over to the government and paid his taxes that would be sufficient. As he said "I'm taxed for them isn't that enough?" Of course the point of the story is it wasn't enough. Scrooge was confident that the government institutions he supported would take care of people; well if you've read the book you know how well that worked.
It is not enough to throw money at the problem we need to actually help people in need and I do not trust the government to accomplish that. As a Christian, I think believers need to get into the trenches as much as possible and not sit back and let the government do their job for them.
Just my dos centavos.
-
How nice that you're not a socialist.
So your answer is that as a society we have no moral obligation to help those who cannot afford basic health care.
Morality and government don't go in the same sentence.
We had charities and churches to dispense our morality from and it worked. We could chose who was worthy of help and who was abusing it. The people receiving the help knew where it came from and appreciated it and strived to stop needing it. In stead we have one size fits all government and those who believe they are entitled to what they get from taxpayers with no moral obligation to stop doing it and voting for more.
-
Morality and government don't go in the same sentence.
We had charities and churches to dispense our morality from and it worked. We could chose who was worthy of help and who was abusing it. The people receiving the help knew where it came from and appreciated it and strived to stop needing it. In stead we have one size fits all government and those who believe they are entitled to what they get from taxpayers with no moral obligation to stop doing it and voting for more.
@DB
You are 100% right in all that you said here but unfortunately wasting your time in saying it to the committed apparatchiks you are speaking to. They will continue to insist that transferring our personal moral imperatives to the government is the ONLY way to fly regardless of what you or I or anyone else says regardless.
-
No, you avoided the question. You ask about morality in giving the poor a government handout.
I asked you if it is moral to extract money from someone to pay for someone else unwilling to work.
And someone is not virtuous when they refuse to work and exist on govt handouts, nor is it virtuous to steal money to pay for someone else's lethargy.
Twisting words is what a lib does.
The ACA is nothing more than a tax; it was a mandate for all to carry insurance regardless of income. Those who don't have insurance were penalized which is absolutely absurd. If one can't afford insurance they sure as heck can't afford to pay the penalty. There are a lot of hardworking people who still can't afford health insurance; penalizing them because they don't have insurance is asinine. There is no morality in forcing someone to pay for something they can't afford and there is no morality in making someone pay for someone's else's health insurance. Case in point, if I can afford to drive a Jaguar, that doesn't mean I should be forced to buy my neighbor a car of any sort. Does that make me any less Christian or less of a humanitarian?
-
Morality and government don't go in the same sentence.
Hah! What a stupid statement.
-
Hah! What a stupid statement.
Only for those too ignorant to understand it!
-
Only for those too ignorant to understand it!
So you agree that morality and government don't go in the same sentence?
I guess those Founding Fathers were real ignoramuses, weren't they?
-
So you agree that morality and government don't go in the same sentence?
I guess those Founding Fathers were real ignoramuses, weren't they?
Do corporations pay taxes?
Do guns kill people?
Do spoons make people fat?
-
Do corporations pay taxes?
Do guns kill people?
Do spoons make people fat?
Is Bigun really as thought-free as his on-line presence makes him appear to be?
-
Is Bigun really as thought-free as his on-line presence makes him appear to be?
Answer the questions or begone fly.
-
Hah! What a stupid statement.
Well I'll grant you that it is either a stupid statement or the person reading the statement is too stupid to understand it.
https://fee.org/resources/not-your-to-give-2/
-
Answer the questions or begone fly.
Once he/she/ze/zir/whatever realizes that you arent going to cave in, you're in for a real treat. you'll be instructed on how your life is poorly lived and various other bits of sanctimonious nonsense.
-
Once he/she/ze/zir/whatever realizes that you arent going to cave in, you're in for a real treat. you'll be instructed on how your life is poorly lived and various other bits of sanctimonious nonsense.
It's what trolls do! They can't help it!
-
Answer the questions or begone fly.
Yes, apparently Bigun is as thought-free as his on-line presence makes him appear to be.
Satisfied?
-
Yes, apparently Bigun is as thought-free as his on-line presence makes him appear to be.
Satisfied?
See ya Troll! Have a nice life!
-
The House GOP plan apparently approaches the problem by offering so-called "tax credits," which is perhaps a fancy way of saying "means-tested subsidies" that can be used for premiums or HSAs. If these can be applied with minimal regulatory overhead then I think it's not perfect but about as good as can be expected.
There's no perfect solution, but I think I agree with you that this is probably as good as it gets. A key to bringing costs down is to encourage those who receive health care services to be good consumers. To avoid a single payer system - which leads straight to the rationing of care - the problem of selfish free riders needs to be addressed. The ACA individual mandate was one such idea - but it has failed for several reasons, not the least being that the options made available in ACA's individual insurance marketplace are expensive and unattractive.
Replacing the individual mandate with refundable tax credits to a health savings account can provide everyone with the means, if they choose, to cover themselves with basic insurance protection covering annual check-ups and preventive care, acute emergencies and "stop loss" coverage for catastrophe. The cost of such credits can be financed in part by requiring the value of employer-provided health insurance to be taxed as ordinary income. Consumers could use the amounts in their health savings accounts to either purchase insurance or pay for medical expenses directly.
Give everyone a one-time opportunity to purchase insurance without regard to pre-existing conditions and permit insurers to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions for anyone who doesn't take advantage of the one-time buy-in.
Finally, allow and encourage insurers to write unconventional policies that tailor coverage to the specific risks for which consumers want to purchase protection. If a consumer wants, for example, to pay less for coverage that doesn't cover drastic treatments for cancer, then he should be able to do so.
-
There's no perfect solution, but I think I agree with you that this is probably as good as it gets. A key to bringing costs down is to encourage those who receive health care services to be good consumers. To avoid a single payer system - which leads straight to the rationing of care - the problem of selfish free riders needs to be addressed. The ACA individual mandate was one such idea - but it has failed for several reasons, not the least being that the options made available in the individual insurance marketplace are expensive and unattractive.
Replacing the individual mandate with refundable tax credits to a health savings account can provide everyone with the means, if they choose, to cover themselves with basic insurance protection covering annual check-ups and preventive care, acute emergencies and "stop loss" coverage for catastrophe. The cost of such credits can be financed in part by requiring the value of employer-provided health insurance to be taxed as ordinary income. Consumers could use the amounts in their health savings accounts to either purchase insurance or pay for medical expenses directly.
Give everyone a one-time opportunity to purchase insurance without regard to pre-existing conditions and permit insurers to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions for anyone who doesn't take advantage of the one-time buy-in.
Finally, allow and encourage insurers to write unconventional policies that tailor coverage to the specific risks for which consumers want to purchase protection. If a consumer wants, for example, to pay less for coverage that doesn't cover drastic treatments for cancer, then he should be able to do so.
Allowing those to become 'good consumers' as you put it, will only happen when the free marketplace is allowed to work. Secondly, I don't know of any proposed plan that denies coverage for pre-existing conditions and a one-time deal mirrors what is available today; threatening one to join in either now or they can't every join in -- not exactly allowing one to be a good consumer.
I feel a combination of Cruz and Paul's plan will work ... not even allowing their plans to get off the ground because of the fear the left has invoked will only ensure that Bammycare will not be repealed or replaced which is exactly what their hoping for.
-
How about something different?
Everything you spend on Medical CARE is tax deductible, and below a means-tested threshold becomes a refundable tax credit. Everything you spend on Medical Insurance is deductible.
That includes preventive care, vision, dental, replacement parts and appliances, supplies, prescriptions, the works right down to capital improvements to accommodate any disability and scooters and wheelchairs, service animals--all of it. Some will abuse that, others will find it a godsend.
It isn't the rich getting pounded here, they can best afford care (and the best). It isn't the poor--they have medicaid. The elderly have Medicare, and supplemental insurance. But working age middle class people are getting flogged. Not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid (they own stuff), not rich enough to pay for insurance and pay taxes on that money too (20-33%), the Middle Class is the one getting hit from all sides.
Of course, the Socialists have had it out for the Middle Class all along.
One-time deals will only let those in who can, and if someone is not in a fiscal position to be able to opt in, then they will be excluded? No. That stinks.
I like a al carte ideas, I for one do not ever anticipate that I will need a hysterectomy (I ain't wired that way), nor an abortion (elective abortions are something I'd love to be able to exclude), a pap test, etc. My wife, on the other hand, as gutsy as she is, won't need the prostate exam. At our age, I don't anticipate we'll need maternity benefits either. For couples some of those risks might be melded, but for a single guy or gal, no.
I'd like to see some more honest underwriting, too. I use tobacco, but I don't smoke (quit that over a decade ago), but I don't drink, or do drugs.
While we are told (constantly) how good exercise is for us, in 2005, for instance, over half a million people showed up at the ER with basketball related injuries. the tally looks like this: The Top 15:
Basketball: 512,213
Bicycling: 485,669
Football: 418,260
Soccer: 174,686
Baseball: 155,898
Skateboards: 112,544
Trampolines: 108,029
Softball: 106,884
Weightlifting: 65,716
Volleyball: 52,091
Golf: 47,360
Roller skating: 35,003
Wrestling: 33,734
, Well, I don't do any of that stuff, so how about a break so I don't have to pay for all those people who hurt themselves 'being healthy'? I'll pay for the risks associated with Swimming/Diving: 82,354
Horseback riding: 73,576
as occasional activities.
source:
http://www.livescience.com/803-dangerous-sports-america.html (http://www.livescience.com/803-dangerous-sports-america.html)
Factor in my driving record, and I might be a better risk than people who are supposedly healthier than me.
But the system wasn't designed to be fair. I thought I'd get a break on vehicle insurance when I quit smoking, but noticed the language had been changed to "tobacco user". People put more effort and concentration into chewing gum than I do in using tobacco (and likely are more distracted by it), but I'm still paying like I was chain-smoking Chesterfields.
It never will be "fair", but some better actuarial assessment might do something to close all those cracks that seem to open underfoot. But then, the biz wouldn't be as lucrative as it is.