ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Eric the Green]

(03-31-2017, 01:49 AM)Warren Dew 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?

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.

Welcome back, you deceived right-winger you

Welcome back

I just think it includes people who couldn't afford it, many of them on medicaid.

[Kinser79]

(04-03-2017, 11:39 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Legalize weed, psilocyben, and possibly LSD. Tax them at Fed and State levels. Apply revenue to health care. Problem solved.

So your solution to the problem of financing a single payer system which will be horendiously expensive (just ask the Brits or the Canuks) is to legalize pot, shrooms and acid and tax them?  You do realize that the taxes on those items would have to be so high as to keep people buying them on the black market right?  One of the problems Colorado is facing is its pot taxes are too high which is keeping some of the activity still on the black market.

While I favor the legalization of all drugs (mostly because I find attempts to legislate morality counterproductive) I cannot see how this would pay for a whole federal single payer system--nor does this address my other two points.

[David Horn]

(04-04-2017, 08:35 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: ... the problem of financing a single payer system which will be horendiously expensive (just ask the Brits or the Canuks) ...

Our system, broken in pieces and spread to the wind, is vastly more expensive.  Since people are unlikely to roll over and die on command, a system that is cheaper is better.  Single payer is the lowest cost method ... period.

You seem fixated on making this same incorrect assertion.  Why?  Here it is in graphic form:

[Eric the Green]

The USA has a severe problem. It is its most severe problem. That problem, is its aversion to "socialism," and its obsession with "individual character" and "self-reliance." That's why the anti-socialist "health care reform" bill put forward by the anti-socialists was called "The American" health care reform act. Because "it's American" to be against "socialized medicine" or "government" health care. We falsely believe that we Americans are the "exceptional nation" because "we are self-reliant." It's nothing but a big ego trip.

The apostle of our problem on this site is Galen. If you want to see a complete description of our most severe problem, just read any post by Galen (I don't).

[Kinser79]

(04-04-2017, 11:10 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-04-2017, 08:35 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: ... the problem of financing a single payer system which will be horendiously expensive (just ask the Brits or the Canuks) ...

Our system, broken in pieces and spread to the wind, is vastly more expensive.  Since people are unlikely to roll over and die on command, a system that is cheaper is better.  Single payer is the lowest cost method ... period.

You seem fixated on making this same incorrect assertion.  Why?  Here it is in graphic form:

Look it is really simple, either we have a private system and you pay with money or you have a public one and you pay with time.  Lets just say if you want cancer treatment the Brits, Frogs and Canucks come to the States.  Their systems are alright for things like head colds and check ups but otherwise you're waiting years for major treatments.  Or do you think all these people who come to get treatment here do so because they want to have a vacation at our many fabulous hospitals.

Also you're still comparing apples to bananas. Every single one of those countries that have a majority public provision of health care has a large mono-culture and is largely homogenous. Only the EU states are working to change that--it will cause them to implode.

[Kinser79]

On Socialized Medicine from a CANADIAN!!

[Kinser79]

Or perhaps a Canadian Doctor might know something about their Health Care system too.

[Ragnarök_62]

(04-05-2017, 09:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:



Or perhaps a Canadian Doctor might know something about their Health Care system too.

Given, the sorry state of healthcare in North America, perchance it's time to get back to the garden.

http://www.cherokee.org/About-The-Nation...inal-Herbs

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1140...est_Herbal

[Galen]

(04-05-2017, 09:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:



Or perhaps a Canadian Doctor might know something about their Health Care system too.

They don't want to hear anything from the people that have to live under an actual socialized medical system because then it might implode their dreams of a socialist utopia.  They are also discounting the effects of increasing government involvement in health care.  This is one of the clearest examples of crony capitalism which has largely supported the interests of the AMA.

Here is an example of crony capitalism, thank to the progressives, from nearly one hundred years ago that screwed the poor that they claim to care for.  It also shows what would likely arise in an actual free market.

[pbrower2a]

We have the most expensive medical-care system in the world. The chart does not give enough data for financial analysis of the causes, but private payments alone are about half of what America pays on average per person -- and that is more than the total payments for medical care per person in some countries. Public and private expenditure is similarly high; indeed they are about equal.  Amounts per capita for both public expenditure and private expenditure on medical care  are both higher than what is paid in other countries in total. I am not sure that we get better results except for those in the business of medical care. .



If this were transportation, it would be as if the only cars that we could buy were over-priced marques and all the roads (even dirt roads) had heavy tolls for use. We would find that anything that required transportation would be fiendishly expensive in contrast to comparable costs in other countries. Employers would be setting up (slum) employee housing and company stores next to places of mass employment just to keep labor costs down. Those in the highway business would be telling people the glories of using their overpriced cars or driving on their overpriced tollways. There would be huge public-sector spending on subsidies for the transportation industry, and those subsidies would feed the bottom lines of transportation companies. Meanwhile, all else gets impoverished.

I know of Americans going to Mexico for medical care. Mexico may be no paradise for physicians, but Mexican physicians and pharmacists welcome American patients. Mexico does not have profits-first policy to allow Big Pharma to gouge customers. Mexico is a poor country,  but the difference between American medical costs and Mexican medical costs might be a good reason to retire in Mexico. That's about $7000 a year.

Do Americans have higher medical costs due to bad habits? At least we do not smoke much by world standards. We are not bigger drinkers than the world average. We are not more sedentary. We simply have an extreme example of profits-first medicine that no other nation would tolerate.

[Ragnarök_62]

(04-10-2017, 02:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [quote pid='24700' dateline='1491749247']


Do Americans have higher medical costs due to bad habits? At least we do not smoke much by world standards. We are not bigger drinkers than the world average. We are not more sedentary. We simply have an extreme example of profits-first medicine that no other nation would tolerate.

However compared with the Rest of the World Americans eat more carbs, meat, fatty foods and processed foods. Also, the addiction to sodas.
[/quote]

Other places have bad habits also. The Vodka belt puts quite a few belts of shots down. The Scandinavian nations like to smoke and drink [as part of the Vodka.]  Now, Sweden is gonna get hit though 'cause they didn't control their border and are full up with those refugees. That's an example of how public policy fuckups make for more expensive medical care.  In the US, well now, Bernie Sanders did put a bill forth to allow for importation of drugs from other markets to get our oligarchicly sky high drug prices down.  Now, on this fuckup, it was almost exclusively a Republican endeavor to keep the status quo.  So, you see right there, Republicans don't give a shit about free markets, even though that's what they keep saying. It's obvious that when the Republicans say "free markets", then always replace that phrase with the word, "oligarchic" and then you'll know exactly what Republicans support. They do not support people, but rather whatever PACs/companies feathered their nests.
This state affairs leads to multitudes of mindless shit jobs which pay nada,zilch,nunca,nil. Now THAT is why there's bad eating/exercise habits. If you work at said shit job and were married/had kids then you're going to be too tired 'cause after your mind numbing shit job, you are tired/depressed/pissed off/ if working in person facing job , pissed off because people in general are tacky. So your "job experience" sux. Now that leads to assorted things that make the lower classes to take brief "vacations".  This includes eating fast foodies/tobacco use/ethanol/street drugs
for said vacation.

[Kinser79]

Actually in the Scandinavian countries smoking is way way down due to wide spread use of Snus which is perhaps the least harmful way (apart from perhaps vaping) to ingest nicotine.

[Ragnarök_62]

(04-11-2017, 12:13 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Actually in the Scandinavian countries smoking is way way down due to wide spread use of Snus which is perhaps the least harmful way (apart from perhaps vaping) to ingest nicotine.

Oh, the humanity. Ya mean said countries actually have harm reduction activities.

[Kinser79]

(04-11-2017, 12:21 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(04-11-2017, 12:13 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Actually in the Scandinavian countries smoking is way way down due to wide spread use of Snus which is perhaps the least harmful way (apart from perhaps vaping) to ingest nicotine.

Oh, the humanity. Ya mean said countries actually have harm reduction activities.

Yes, it is absolutely absurd.  I mean people are going to do whatever they want anyway so why should those very things in the least harmful way possible.

[pbrower2a]

(04-10-2017, 02:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(04-09-2017, 09:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: We have the most expensive medical-care system in the world. The chart does not give enough data for financial analysis of the causes, but private payments alone are about half of what America pays on average per person -- and that is more than the total payments for medical care per person in some countries. Public and private expenditure is similarly high; indeed they are about equal.  Amounts per capita for both public expenditure and private expenditure on medical care  are both higher than what is paid in other countries in total. I am not sure that we get better results except for those in the business of medical care. .



If this were transportation, it would be as if the only cars that we could buy were over-priced marques and all the roads (even dirt roads) had heavy tolls for use. We would find that anything that required transportation would be fiendishly expensive in contrast to comparable costs in other countries. Employers would be setting up (slum) employee housing and company stores  next to places of mass employment just to keep labor costs down. Those in the highway business would be telling people the glories of using their overpriced cars or driving on their overpriced tollways. There would be huge public-sector spending on subsidies for the transportation industry, and those subsidies would feed the bottom lines of transportation companies. Meanwhile, all else gets impoverished.

I know of Americans going to Mexico for medical care. Mexico may be no paradise for physicians, but Mexican physicians and pharmacists welcome American patients. Mexico does not have profits-first policy to allow Big Pharma to gouge customers. Mexico is a poor country,  but the difference between American medical costs and Mexican medical costs might be a good reason to retire in Mexico. That's about $7000 a year.

Do Americans have higher medical costs due to bad habits? At least we do not smoke much by world standards. We are not bigger drinkers than the world average. We are not more sedentary. We simply have an extreme example of profits-first medicine that no other nation would tolerate.

However compared with the Rest of the World Americans eat more carbs, meat, fatty foods and processed foods. Also, the addiction to sodas.

...just notice all the grotesquely-obese people. I have been in a bind and had to use food aid, and I was surprised at what I could buy with the aid. But I generally chose to eat little junk. It is not my desire to go to a monotonous diet. I am not a scratch cook (that would require more of an expenditure of time in cooking and cleaning), so my lasagna comes out of a box. But this said, I could and did choose strawberries over potato chips.

It may be cynical, but I see those bear-sized humans shop for food as a warning of what not to buy in the grocery store. Chips, chips, and more chips. Cand. Snack cakes. I did not need to make comments to the schmucks damning themselves to fatal heart attacks in their forties.

Yes, many smoke. I question whether these people truly can enjoy life.

[Bob Butler 54]

One more failure at repeal and replace.

It seems there are just barely enough Republicans who care that people have a path to decent health care that the repeal part isn't going to fly until a path at the decent health care is there?

The story is that Obama spent so much of his political capitol on health care that he didn't have enough left after to push any sort of legislative agenda.  Trump seems determined to repeat the pattern, pushing health care and refusing to move on.

Meanwhile the wild mix of private, government and corporate health care with the insurance companies taking their cut of the top isn't appealing compared to what other nations have achieved.

But it doesn't seem to be the progressives that face a problem.  The easily made promises to provide a better and cheaper health care were just impossible.  You get what you pay for.  The conservatives seem to remember the repeal promises, but a lot of their congressmen are trying hard to bypass the replace promises.  Just enough remember and care.

[Eric the Green]

What puzzled me is why 9 senators voted down the repeal and replace bill, and then only 2 of them (plus McCain who had voted FOR the repeal and replace bill) voted against the skinny repeal bill in hopes of something better emerging out of a conference with the House. But what could have emerged except another bill like they had already voted down? Especially since the House bill was much worse.

[tg63]

I suspect that the seven bought into the theory that by approving the repeal, a sense of urgency would have been created that would force a workable proposal to be negotiated.

[Warren Dew]

(06-09-2017, 10:32 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Sorry to hear you are in a tight spot. My wife and I remember past times like that. We live as if we are in a tight spot. We buy huge bags of organically grown greens, cruciform veg, as well as week's worth of tofu, yogurt, as well, from Costco, for example. High veg protein, high veg, low carb and most of all .... cheap!

Those big bags of greens ... throw 'em in the microwave with a garnish of vinegar and herbs ... good stuff!!!

If you're buying organically grown anything, you're not living as if you are in a tight spot.

[Warren Dew]

(07-28-2017, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What puzzled me is why 9 senators voted down the repeal and replace bill, and then only 2 of them (plus McCain who had voted FOR the repeal and replace bill) voted against the skinny repeal bill in hopes of something better emerging out of a conference with the House. But what could have emerged except another bill like they had already voted down? Especially since the House bill was much worse.

Only 3 of the 49 voted for "skinny repeal" because they hoped something better would emerge.  Probably most to all of the other 46 actually preferred "skinny repeal" to any of the alternatives offered.

I mean, seriously:

- Medicaid expansion untouched, which gave the moderate Republicans everything they could hope for.
- The individual mandate, hated by all, repealed.
- The employer mandate, which prevents creation of full time entry level jobs, repealed.

The exchanges are already in a death spiral; tanking them a little faster or a little slower won't make much difference.