Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(03-28-2017, 01:16 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]PS:

Today marks a special time, Eric. I've joined the sub set of people who use the ignore function. I did it to reduce the clutter that appears from person of my personal banning.

What's wrong?  Did you need a 'safe space', snowflake?

(03-28-2017, 12:35 AM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2017, 09:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2017, 07:19 PM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2017, 05:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2017, 05:16 PM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how many people would actually lose medical insurance.
I heard somebody mention around 14 million.
(What is that, like less than 5% of the population?)

Does the number reported include people that don't even want it?
Is it only Americans, or are other people included as well?

I have to admit that it's amazing to me that Pres. Trump came
out of this looking so reasonable.  He sure seems to know how
to consistently land on his feet.  # PrettyImpressive.

lol If you call stumbling and falling down a golden escalator while holding hands with a bimbo "pretty impressive!"

Who are you referring to as a 'bimbo'?

Just a typical Drump image to contrast with your amazing claim that Drump "landed on his feet." ha ha ha

Yeah, ha ha ha.  It's fine to not like the president, but
you had to go and trash the First Lady, too? #Gutless

sorry, I don't use twitter, so I guess the hashtag will go unrecognized. To me # still means "number"

I don't know if I was trashing her specifically; Trump will go after whichever bimbo he wants, whether he's married or not. I was trashing Trump.

Quote:

EtG Wrote:Snowflake, this is a blizzard!

Obamacare covered those who aren't covered by their employer. The CBO said 24 million. That's just about everyone Obamacare covered!

Me Wrote:OK.  Even if that number is correct(which I highly doubt), we're up to 7.5%.
Sorry, not worth it.

I don't know what 7.5% referred to. What DID happen under Obamacare is that many more people got coverage. The CBO says 24 million would have lost coverage under Trump/Ryancare.

Now we have Obamacare as administered by Trump's alligators. It may amount to pretty much the same thing as the Obamacare lite bill that failed. Insurance companies will be let off the hook from requirements to cover people, and there will be less funding to help people buy insurance.

7.5% refers to that CBO 24M number you posted. 
At worst that's only 7.5% of the US population.  

That's still a lot of folks. Any president who can help 24M people is doing a good thing.

Quote:

EtG Wrote:Health insurance is too expensive unless "people that don't even want it" are required to buy it. That's how social insurance works. That's how social security and medicare work.

Me Wrote:Healthcare(as well as Insurance) is a 'product'.  Not the same as Social Security.
I don't want my government forcing me or anyone else to buy a product.  Period.

No, health insurance is not a product; it's the same as social security. Social insurance. I take it you are also opposed to medicare, which is also a "product" you are forced to buy, according to your definition.

Yes it is.  Medicare is for 'the elderly' and 'disabled people', so it can stay.

Why should only the elderly have health care?

Quote:

EtG Wrote:I'd be interested in looking at a true compromise bill, even tho I favor single payer. Somebody might have some good points. Maybe the approach of paying more if you sign up late might be better than a mandate; maybe tax credits might work.

But this wasn't it. It was not even the repeal and replace with nuthin that the extremists wanted. It was a big tax break for the rich, a 5x premium increase for middle-aged insured, and a see-ya-later approach for 24 million covered by Obamacare. So that's what the people said: see ya later, Paul and Donnie!

Me Wrote:No, that's not 'what the people said'.  The Democrats pushed through the PPACA;
It should be their responsibility to fix it.  But where are they?  #IrrelevantParty

Democrats are not allowed to fix it. They have not had control of congress for over 7 years now. The Republicans have not been interested in anything except repealing Obamacare for 7 years. When given full control of the government, they give us this Obamacare lite baloney that nobody wants. I don't have much optimism that they can be the "relevant" party now and work with Democrats to create another makeshift, make-do compromise.

The product as passed in 2010 did not have a public option, and was not single payer medicare for all. So OF COURSE it was flawed. It was a compromise with the insurance industry, whose only goal is to make money by denying people coverage. As long as we aren't putting that industry out of business, our health care will be compromised, and whatever compromise is passed or proposed will be flawed.

I bet you're not being screwed-over by the PPACA, are you?
Well, I sure am.  And it has to go away one way or another
(even if I have to vote Republican to help make that happen).

Obviously voting Republican is not going to make that happen, judging by results! ha ha ha

Going back to pre-Obamacare just means even more expensive health care than today. Unless you are rich, and have to pay more taxes as well as higher premiums. But then, if you're rich, you have gotten off so easy on taxes for so long that it's not a concern.

(03-28-2017, 04:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2017, 12:35 AM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2017, 09:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2017, 07:19 PM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2017, 05:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]lol If you call stumbling and falling down a golden escalator while holding hands with a bimbo "pretty impressive!"

Who are you referring to as a 'bimbo'?

Just a typical Drump image to contrast with your amazing claim that Drump "landed on his feet." ha ha ha

Yeah, ha ha ha.  It's fine to not like the president, but
you had to go and trash the First Lady, too? #Gutless

sorry, I don't use twitter, so I guess the hashtag will go unrecognized. To me # still means "number"

I don't know if I was trashing her specifically; Trump will go after whichever bimbo he wants, whether he's married or not. I was trashing Trump.

Yes you were.  And you can't even admit it.  Like I said.  You're gutless.

EtG Wrote:Snowflake, this is a blizzard!

Obamacare covered those who aren't covered by their employer. The CBO said 24 million. That's just about everyone Obamacare covered!

Me Wrote:OK.  Even if that number is correct(which I highly doubt), we're up to 7.5%.
Sorry, not worth it.

I don't know what 7.5% referred to. What DID happen under Obamacare is that many more people got coverage. The CBO says 24 million would have lost coverage under Trump/Ryancare.

Now we have Obamacare as administered by Trump's alligators. It may amount to pretty much the same thing as the Obamacare lite bill that failed. Insurance companies will be let off the hook from requirements to cover people, and there will be less funding to help people buy insurance.

Me Wrote:7.5% refers to that CBO 24M number you posted. 
At worst that's only 7.5% of the US population.

  
That's still a lot of folks. Any president who can help 24M people is doing a good thing.

But, at what cost?  What about all the people like me that are getting hurt by the PPACA?

EtG Wrote:Healthcare is too expensive unless "people that don't even want it" are required to buy it. That's how social insurance works. That's how social security and medicare work.

Me Wrote:Healthcare(as well as Insurance) is a 'product'.  Not the same as Social Security.
I don't want my government forcing me or anyone else to buy a product.  Period.

No, health insurance is not a product; it's the same as social security. Social insurance. I take it you are also opposed to medicare, which is also a "product" you are forced to buy, according to your definition.

Me Wrote:Yes it is.  Medicare is for 'the elderly' and 'disabled people', so it can stay.

Why should only the elderly have health care?

As far as 'the elderly' are concerned, they're not in their 'earning years'.  They paid into the
system.  That was a deal that was made before I was born, but 'a deal is a deal', so it stays.

EtG Wrote:I'd be interested in looking at a true compromise bill, even tho I favor single payer. Somebody might have some good points. Maybe the approach of paying more if you sign up late might be better than a mandate; maybe tax credits might work.

But this wasn't it. It was not even the repeal and replace with nuthin that the extremists wanted. It was a big tax break for the rich, a 5x premium increase for middle-aged insured, and a see-ya-later approach for 24 million covered by Obamacare. So that's what the people said: see ya later, Paul and Donnie!

Me Wrote:No, that's not 'what the people said'.  The Democrats pushed through the PPACA;
It should be their responsibility to fix it.  But where are they?  #IrrelevantParty

Democrats are not allowed to fix it. They have not had control of congress for over 7 years now. The Republicans have not been interested in anything except repealing Obamacare for 7 years. When given full control of the government, they give us this Obamacare lite baloney that nobody wants. I don't have much optimism that they can be the "relevant" party now and work with Democrats to create another makeshift, make-do compromise.

The product as passed in 2010 did not have a public option, and was not single payer medicare for all. So OF COURSE it was flawed. It was a compromise with the insurance industry, whose only goal is to make money by denying people coverage. As long as we aren't putting that industry out of business, our health care will be compromised, and whatever compromise is passed or proposed will be flawed.

Me Wrote:I bet you're not being screwed-over by the PPACA, are you?
Well, I sure am.  And it has to go away one way or another
(even if I have to vote Republican to help make that happen).

Obviously voting Republican is not going to make that happen, judging by results! ha ha ha

Going back to pre-Obamacare just means even more expensive health care than today. Unless you are rich, and have to pay more taxes as well as higher premiums. But then, if you're rich, you have gotten off so easy on taxes for so long that it's not a concern.

You're on Medicare, aren't you?

(03-28-2017, 12:07 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Irony - the GOP have been doing everything possible to set us up for Single Payer. First, they did not participate in ACA or present any credible alternative either before or after ACA. This goes back to the failed Hillary Care during the 90s. They have had 25 years to come up with something of their own. And now, they shit the bed.

Single Payer here we come.

Single payer ain't going to fly. The majority of Americans aren't blue idiots at this point. How many Americans do you know who spend the bulk of their time/life fucking off, wasting time, running around in endless circles clinging to hope?

(03-28-2017, 10:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2017, 12:07 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Irony - the GOP have been doing everything possible to set us up for Single Payer. First, they did not participate in ACA or present any credible alternative either before or after ACA. This goes back to the failed Hillary Care during the 90s. They have had 25 years to come up with something of their own. And now, they shit the bed.

Single Payer here we come.

Single payer ain't going to fly. The majority of Americans aren't blue idiots at this point. How many Americans do you know who spend the bulk of their time/life fucking off, wasting time, running around in endless circles clinging to hope?

Doctors appear to be dropping insurance and medicare.  Interesting how the free market is in the process of solving a problem the government caused in the first place.

(03-28-2017, 07:38 AM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2017, 04:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2017, 12:35 AM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2017, 09:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-27-2017, 07:19 PM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ]Who are you referring to as a 'bimbo'?

Just a typical Drump image to contrast with your amazing claim that Drump "landed on his feet." ha ha ha

Yeah, ha ha ha.  It's fine to not like the president, but
you had to go and trash the First Lady, too? #Gutless

sorry, I don't use twitter, so I guess the hashtag will go unrecognized. To me # still means "number"

I don't know if I was trashing her specifically; Trump will go after whichever bimbo he wants, whether he's married or not. I was trashing Trump.

Yes you were.  And you can't even admit it.  Like I said.  You're gutless.

No, I don't admit it. But then, Melania has to be pretty tolerant to hook up with a bimbo banger and pussy grabber. But, that's her decision.

Quote:

EtG Wrote:Snowflake, this is a blizzard!

Obamacare covered those who aren't covered by their employer. The CBO said 24 million. That's just about everyone Obamacare covered!

Me Wrote:OK.  Even if that number is correct(which I highly doubt), we're up to 7.5%.
Sorry, not worth it.

I don't know what 7.5% referred to. What DID happen under Obamacare is that many more people got coverage. The CBO says 24 million would have lost coverage under Trump/Ryancare.

Now we have Obamacare as administered by Trump's alligators. It may amount to pretty much the same thing as the Obamacare lite bill that failed. Insurance companies will be let off the hook from requirements to cover people, and there will be less funding to help people buy insurance.

Me Wrote:7.5% refers to that CBO 24M number you posted. 
At worst that's only 7.5% of the US population.

  
That's still a lot of folks. Any president who can help 24M people is doing a good thing.

But, at what cost?  What about all the people like me that are getting hurt by the PPACA?

Rich guys have to pay more. Not a big deal; it's about time.

If you are young and make too much to get subsidies, it's doubtful that Trump/Ryancare would have helped you much, if at all. Maybe premiums would have gone down years from now, but I doubt it, since under Trumpcare the insurance industry is given much more free rein. The best bet would have been to get Hillary and the Democrats in, so we'd have a government that really cares about affordable health care and could fix the ACA.

The cost of Ryancare would also have been high for middle aged people who would have had to pay 5 times more.

Quote:

EtG Wrote:Healthcare is too expensive unless "people that don't even want it" are required to buy it. That's how social insurance works. That's how social security and medicare work.

Me Wrote:Healthcare(as well as Insurance) is a 'product'.  Not the same as Social Security.
I don't want my government forcing me or anyone else to buy a product.  Period.

No, health insurance is not a product; it's the same as social security. Social insurance. I take it you are also opposed to medicare, which is also a "product" you are forced to buy, according to your definition.

Me Wrote:Yes it is.  Medicare is for 'the elderly' and 'disabled people', so it can stay.

Why should only the elderly have health care?

As far as 'the elderly' are concerned, they're not in their 'earning years'.  They paid into the
system.  That was a deal that was made before I was born, but 'a deal is a deal', so it stays.

Yes, and we need to make a new deal that covers everyone. Progress should not have stopped in 1966.

Quote:

EtG Wrote:I'd be interested in looking at a true compromise bill, even tho I favor single payer. Somebody might have some good points. Maybe the approach of paying more if you sign up late might be better than a mandate; maybe tax credits might work.

But this wasn't it. It was not even the repeal and replace with nuthin that the extremists wanted. It was a big tax break for the rich, a 5x premium increase for middle-aged insured, and a see-ya-later approach for 24 million covered by Obamacare. So that's what the people said: see ya later, Paul and Donnie!

Me Wrote:No, that's not 'what the people said'.  The Democrats pushed through the PPACA;
It should be their responsibility to fix it.  But where are they?  #IrrelevantParty

Democrats are not allowed to fix it. They have not had control of congress for over 7 years now. The Republicans have not been interested in anything except repealing Obamacare for 7 years. When given full control of the government, they give us this Obamacare lite baloney that nobody wants. I don't have much optimism that they can be the "relevant" party now and work with Democrats to create another makeshift, make-do compromise.

The product as passed in 2010 did not have a public option, and was not single payer medicare for all. So OF COURSE it was flawed. It was a compromise with the insurance industry, whose only goal is to make money by denying people coverage. As long as we aren't putting that industry out of business, our health care will be compromised, and whatever compromise is passed or proposed will be flawed.

Me Wrote:I bet you're not being screwed-over by the PPACA, are you?
Well, I sure am.  And it has to go away one way or another
(even if I have to vote Republican to help make that happen).

Obviously voting Republican is not going to make that happen, judging by results! ha ha ha

Going back to pre-Obamacare just means even more expensive health care than today. Unless you are rich, and have to pay more taxes as well as higher premiums. But then, if you're rich, you have gotten off so easy on taxes for so long that it's not a concern.

You're on Medicare, aren't you?

Yes

Me Wrote:You're on Medicare, aren't you?

Eric Wrote:Yes

That figures.  I should have known that someone who doesn't feel the harmful effects of the PPACA wouldn't understand.

I'm done here, but please feel free to continue to trash First Ladies Melania Trump, Jackie Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton.

(03-29-2017, 06:48 AM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ]

Me Wrote:You're on Medicare, aren't you?

Eric Wrote:Yes

That figures.  I should have known that someone who doesn't feel the harmful effects of the PPACA wouldn't understand.

I'm done here, but please feel free to continue to trash First Ladies Melania Trump, Jackie Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton.

May our troubles melt away like snowflakes

(03-28-2017, 06:23 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2017, 03:11 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2017, 10:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2017, 12:07 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Irony - the GOP have been doing everything possible to set us up for Single Payer. First, they did not participate in ACA or present any credible alternative either before or after ACA. This goes back to the failed Hillary Care during the 90s. They have had 25 years to come up with something of their own. And now, they shit the bed.

Single Payer here we come.

Single payer ain't going to fly. The majority of Americans aren't blue idiots at this point. How many Americans do you know who spend the bulk of their time/life fucking off, wasting time, running around in endless circles clinging to hope?

Doctors appear to be dropping insurance and medicare.  Interesting how the free market is in the process of solving a problem the government caused in the first place.

When this becomes a crisis of availability, and no hybrid solution ala Obama-care or its aborted bastard child Trump-care is available, the resulting backlash will give us single payer. Deny though one may, that is what is coming. The set up is now in place. Own it.

There will never be single payer in the US.  There are several good reasons why.

1.  People who've used Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA find it difficult to find a doctor who will take them, and in the case of the VA--yeah that is government run health care and it works great.  Said no one whose ever tried to use it, ever.

2.  Where is the money going to come from to pay for this single payer?  Are we going to raise taxes?  Cut spending elsewhere (say the military and intelligence agencies) or will the government just inflate its way out.  As we know the printing press option never ever has consequences.

3.  Diversity is not our strength.  European countries (and the Anglophone countries--except the US) implemented their systems when they were more or less monocultural and homogeneous.  The US has never been homogeneous even when it attempted to be monocultural.


So we have the perfect trifecta as to why single payer isn't ever happening in the US.  1.  If the government runs something, it turns to shit--always.  2.  We don't have the money to pay for it without having either inflation or taxation--and the former will end the petrodollar faster than the latter.  3.  Lack of clear tribe on the national scale.

(03-29-2017, 02:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2017, 06:23 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2017, 03:11 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]Doctors appear to be dropping insurance and medicare.  Interesting how the free market is in the process of solving a problem the government caused in the first place.

When this becomes a crisis of availability, and no hybrid solution ala Obama-care or its aborted bastard child Trump-care is available, the resulting backlash will give us single payer. Deny though one may, that is what is coming. The set up is now in place. Own it.

3.  Diversity is not our strength.  European countries (and the Anglophone countries--except the US) implemented their systems when they were more or less monocultural and homogeneous.  The US has never been homogeneous even when it attempted to be monocultural.

It is interesting how often this is overlooked or how important it is.  It is far more likely for people to express altruism toward relatives than not.  It is likely that this is the reason tribalism is the default state of humanity.  Yet more evidence that people are not infinitely malleable as the progressives seem to believe but then respect empirical evidence is really not something I would expect from those who brought us political correctness.

Yes well the so-called progressives really are Marxists, and not very good Marxists at that. The term political correctness arose during the Cultural Revolution in China.

(03-29-2017, 03:56 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes well the so-called progressives really are Marxists, and not very good Marxists at that.  The term political correctness arose during the Cultural Revolution in China.

Ya know, The  the PC brigade is a gaggle of cultural Marxists who propose nothing in the eyes of Rags. I wonder if our contingent of snowflakes even consider how authoritarian they really are.

Drump looks for anyone else to blame for Trumpcon

(03-28-2017, 03:11 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2017, 10:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2017, 12:07 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Irony - the GOP have been doing everything possible to set us up for Single Payer. First, they did not participate in ACA or present any credible alternative either before or after ACA. This goes back to the failed Hillary Care during the 90s. They have had 25 years to come up with something of their own. And now, they shit the bed.

Single Payer here we come.

Single payer ain't going to fly. The majority of Americans aren't blue idiots at this point. How many Americans do you know who spend the bulk of their time/life fucking off, wasting time, running around in endless circles clinging to hope?

Doctors appear to be dropping insurance and medicare.  Interesting how the free market is in the process of solving a problem the government caused in the first place.

Even George Will agrees that single payer is now highly likely.  The GOP has bupkis, and the Dems see no need to suck-up after they trashed a Heritage Foundation designed "Obamacare".  Given an opportunity, they'll move pretty fast.  If they're going to get slammed, they may as well get slammed for something excellent rather than mundane (at best).

Oh, and btw, the plural of anecdote is not data, just in case you're confused.  Sure, some doctors in some places will decide to kick the insurance habit and go naked.  We all wish them the best of luck.

(03-29-2017, 02:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]There will never be single payer in the US.  There are several good reasons why.

1.  People who've used Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA find it difficult to find a doctor who will take them, and in the case of the VA--yeah that is government run health care and it works great.  Said no one whose ever tried to use it, ever.

I'm on Medicare, and have no trouble finding a doctor.  I've also used the VA, and they are only limited by their funding.  The services are good if certainly not great.  The funding can be fixed, and the VA would be much less burdened if Medicare For All handled non-veteran-specific healthcare.  Let the VA take care of PTSD (they are the best in the world) and provide prosthetics and similar services for the wounded and disabled.

Kinser79 Wrote:2.  Where is the money going to come from to pay for this single payer?  Are we going to raise taxes?  Cut spending elsewhere (say the military and intelligence agencies) or will the government just inflate its way out.  As we know the printing press option never ever has consequences.

First, raise taxes on the those who have paid far less than they should.  Both Reagan and Clinton handed the wealthy tax bonanzas.  Time to take them back.  But that may be less an issue, since single payer is vastly more efficient than the kluge system we currently have.  We spend 2 to 3 times as much of our GDP by percentage than other advanced countries.

Kinser79 Wrote:3.  Diversity is not our strength.  European countries (and the Anglophone countries--except the US) implemented their systems when they were more or less monocultural and homogeneous.  The US has never been homogeneous even when it attempted to be monocultural.

Blah, blah, blah.  The linkage is not supported by data anywhere.  People get sick and injured.  We can take care them efficiently or not.  If not, then many become disabled and wards of the state.  Why does that make sense?

Kinser79 Wrote:So we have the perfect trifecta as to why single payer isn't ever happening in the US.  1.  If the government runs something, it turns to shit--always.  2.  We don't have the money to pay for it without having either inflation or taxation--and the former will end the petrodollar faster than the latter.  3.  Lack of clear tribe on the national scale.

Medicare and its less generous cousin, Medicaid, have much lower imbedded costs, and work better all around.  I have not had to fight with Medicare over services and disallowed charges -- not once.  Even errors were corrected fast and with no pain.  You are simply wrong on this.

Single payer would be an easy deal. We already pay 2.9% out of our paychecks, paying only for healthcare for seniors, which need more care than others. How much more would we really have to pay if we extended those services to more-healthy younger folks? And also took a % from dividends and capital gains? No more premiums to pay, unless you want extra coverage. And maybe we can cover some of the extras as well (like Part B).

Medicare keeps costs down because of its power of numbers. Dumping the insurance industry would bring costs down, as well as charging everyone who earns money a small % (if everyone pays, that's less everyone has to pay; the social insurance pool that libertarians don't understand), and extra taxes on the wealthy like Obamacare if need be. And more emphasis on prevention and holistic care.

Things like drug treatment (instead of drug wars), gun control, and more pressure on the tobacco industry; how much more could all THAT save too? And more taxes on soda; I have to confess, I'm for it. Just throw that extra revenue into the medicare for all pot too.

We can just assume that Kinser is wrong on anything he says. Probably

(03-30-2017, 02:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]We can just assume that Kinser is wrong on anything he says. Probably

No.  I think he can outperform a broken clock if he puts his mind to it.

(03-30-2017, 11:35 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2017, 02:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]There will never be single payer in the US.  There are several good reasons why.

1.  People who've used Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA find it difficult to find a doctor who will take them, and in the case of the VA--yeah that is government run health care and it works great.  Said no one whose ever tried to use it, ever.

I'm on Medicare, and have no trouble finding a doctor.

Then you are fortunate. Many doctors are dropping both medicare and medicaid because the government doesn't pay the same as private insurance and costs for them are rising steeply.

Quote: I've also used the VA, and they are only limited by their funding.  The services are good if certainly not great.

If you think the VA's services are good then you must not have had very seriously health problems for them to deal with. I'm a veteran too but I prefer using private doctors even though I have to pay for them. My experiences with the VA have not been positive.

Quote:  The funding can be fixed, and the VA would be much less burdened if Medicare For All handled non-veteran-specific healthcare.  Let the VA take care of PTSD (they are the best in the world) and provide prosthetics and similar services for the wounded and disabled.

In other threads people are talking about how the federal government can't seem to find the money to keep the lights on in the Capitol building. Where is the funding for "Medicare for All" going to come from? The GOP has never seen a tax increase it liked, and the Dims have yet to find a government program cut they liked. And that is before we even get into the nightmare that would be turning over 20% of the US economy over to the government--the very same people who have brought us such marvels of customer service as the DMV and IRS.

[quoteFirst, raise taxes on the those who have paid far less than they should.  Both Reagan and Clinton handed the wealthy tax bonanzas.  Time to take them back.  But that may be less an issue, since single payer is vastly more efficient than the kluge system we currently have.  We spend 2 to 3 times as much of our GDP by percentage than other advanced countries.[/quote]

Considering that the Rich already pay 60% of all income taxes I don't think taxing them more is going to help and taxing corporations is probably a bad idea considering the US already has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. If you want to tax something--I'd suggest instituting a nice large Tariff--say 25% on non-food, finished goods. But even so that still would not pay for medicare for all.

It should also be noted that all those other advanced countries you mention are all US allies and fall under our military umbrella. Their welfare states would collapse the second they had to start spending their own money to defend themselves again. That is one area where I want to see massive budget cuts.

Quote:Blah, blah, blah.  The linkage is not supported by data anywhere.  People get sick and injured.  We can take care them efficiently or not.  If not, then many become disabled and wards of the state.  Why does that make sense?

So you have decided to ignore that kin selection is a factor in human behavior. Noted. It seems that you are impervious to facts then.

[quote
Medicare and its less generous cousin, Medicaid, have much lower imbedded costs, and work better all around.  I have not had to fight with Medicare over services and disallowed charges -- not once.  Even errors were corrected fast and with no pain.  You are simply wrong on this.
[/quote]

Medicare and Medicaid work better all around because they funnel the elderly and the poor to the worst doctors around. Seriously I know many doctors--I grew up around the health care provision industry. Any doctor that can get better deals from private insurers is going to drop both in a heart beat. Medicare and Medicaid right now have lower over head, but they are only covering the elderly and the destitute now. When they have to cover everyone I immagine there will be a huge swelling of bureacracy. Indeed it will turn into a nightmare.

Anything the private sector does poorly the government can do worse. And I'm right on this--look at how great public schools are what with people graduating high school and being illiterate.

(03-27-2017, 05:16 PM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how many people would actually lose medical insurance.
I heard somebody mention around 14 million.
(What is that, like less than 5% of the population?)

Does the number reported include people that don't even want it?
Is it only Americans, or are other people included as well?

Yes, it includes people that don't even want it, so "lose medical insurance" is actually inaccurate.  Half of them are "freed from medical insurance".

I believe it includes noncitizens.

(03-24-2017, 07:29 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]What's funny is all of this could be avoided simply by requiring people to buy their own damn insurance.

I wish Trump and Bannon would figure that out.  If they'd pushed that - and Trump at least supposedly wants private sector solutions - they could have made Ryan figure out something that would (a) have passed and (b) would actually be better for America.