Trump: ‘Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated

[TakeYouToTasker]

medicare is not great but its far far better than the nothing or the 'cant use' faux coverage that a lot of people have now. i know many ppl that simply are not getting important procedures (mammograms, colonoscopy) bc they would have to pay thousands in a deductible first. having medicare as a default would allow ppl to get these procedures that saves lives and saves money. granted, the quality of doctors definitely would decrease for those that cant get better coverage, but again those lower quality doctors would be a hell of a lot better than no doctors

The massive rise of deductibles was a direct result of moving from a true insurance model to a non-insurance model which demands pre-paying for all care for every condition. It was inevitable. Imagine what would happen to home insurance costs if it was required to cover "pre-existing conditions" on homes that had already burned down, or what the costs of life insurance might be driven to if insurers were required to newly insure individuals with stage four pancreatic cancer.

 

The rest of this paragraph is pure bunk, as it ignores supply and demand as well as human motivation: health care is a commodity relying on finite resources. Increasing the demand for health care while putting pressures on health care providers which chases them from the industry reducing supply leads to cost increases and rationing. Medicare reimbursement rates many times don't cover the costs of administering care which leads to dwindling compensation for care providers, which drives doctors out of the industry, and discourages new would-be doctors from entering the field.

 

 

 

i cant even think of why anybody would call medicare expansion immoral

Because it both a) redistributes resources from those who have earned them to those who have not, and b) because it reduces the quality of care and access to doctors for all Americans.

 

 

 

the reason the ACA is failing is precisely bc obama was too weak a president to make medicare for all happen in the first place. he made the mistake of trying to involve republicans when the dems had their total control. it was a nice gesture, but the presidency isnt about being nice, its about getting things done. once the dems total control evaporated, the republicans then set out to cripple the ACA simply bc it wasnt theirs. it was a wholly political strategy, and wholly disgusting from a moral standpoint

This is both revisionist, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the American system of government.

 

President Obama did not try to involve Republicans. He did the opposite. This was a bill which was passed purely on party lines, and did not require or receive a single Republican vote to pass; while at the same time there was bi-partisan rejection of the effort, with 39 House Democrats voting against. This is because Americans had rejected the idea, as evidenced by Massachusetts, a liberal strong hold, electing a Republican to the late Senator Ted Kennedy's former seat simply because he campaigned on being the deciding vote to block the law in the Senate. It wasn't about Republicans blocking the implementation of single payer, it was about America rejecting the idea.

 

Further, it's not about "getting things done", it's about the Constitutional process, checks and balances, and the proper role of government. The system is specifically designed to thwart "strong men" who wish to impose their will on the country.

 

 

 

it wasnt at all hard for me to predict at the time that the ACA as it was finally delivered would fail, it was going to fail due to intentional republican sabotage. the good news is that now republicans own it. and it also wasnt hard for me to predict at the same time that when the cycle eventually turns back to republicans they will end up with something that looks almost exactly like the ACA. you dont make complex plans like that work with fairy dust, you make them work with individual mandates so that everybody is covered and everybody contributes throughout their whole life

Explain to me in great detail how Republicans, who didn't have a say in the process, sabotaged a bill entirely designed and passed by Democrats, without any Republican input or votes.

 

And now Republicans own it? How?

 

 

 

the point is, that republicans had the opportunity to do it right the first time and they chose a wholly political path. they had the opportunity to fix it once it started showing that the finagling the democrats did to put it in place despite the republican sabotage werent working, but they chose a wholly political path. now they dont have the luxury to pursue another disgusting wholly political path bc they will own it. that means its not at all surprising that they suddenly will like the way the ACA should have been done properly in the first place

Republicans did what they were elected to do by the people who represent them. Your assertions that Republicans were required to buy into a socialist platform of they were morally bankrupt is equally absurd as your notion that Republicans own a bill that they never touched.

Edited February 28, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

the point is, that republicans had the opportunity to do it right the first time and they chose a wholly political path.

 

It takes a special kind of stupid to blame anyone other than the Democrats for the abortion known as ACA.

 

If you genuinely think it was the GOP who took a political path on ACA, your thoughts aren't worth the keyboard needed to make your sentences more legible.

 

Check your history and get back to us.

[Tiberius]

It's too bad the Democrats didn't nod to that grim political reality when they designed this piece of **** legislation.

But they did, the reality that so many lacked insurance. Law is really popular now

 

 

Because it both a) redistributes resources from those who have earned them to those who have not, and b) because it reduces the quality of care and access to doctors for all Americans.

 

 

 

How does one "earn" the right to health care? Just making enough money? What a POS point

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Not only is Medicare for all a drastic reduction in quality of care, and a massive expansion of the state, it's also immoral.

Immoral?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Immoral?

Yes. Immoral.

 

As I said upthread: Because it both a) redistributes resources from those who have earned them to those who have not presuming to steal from them, and b) because it reduces the quality of care and access to doctors for all Americans.

[Tiberius]

Yes. Immoral.

 

As I said upthread: Because it both a) redistributes resources from those who have earned them to those who have not presuming to steal from them, and b) because it reduces the quality of care and access to doctors for all Americans.

These are false statements. The government stepping in increases access, increases the number of doctors and improves quality of care. You are a total idiot

[Dr.Sack]

Obama f'd this when he allowed the Blue Dog Democrats to strip out the single payer option.

 

Medicare For All would be the most efficient system because you immediately take away the 30% overhead that the insurance companies charge. You'd shrink the labor force but expand the Medicare workforce which only operates on a 3% overhead.

 

Last you'd get rid of the Medicaid - a huge funding source to state governments which is often "borrowed" against. Not sure how this would be addressed. That said they state welfare workforce would also shrink due to not needing to staff and manage a Medicaid office.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Dr.Sack

[DC Tom]

Obama f'd this when he allowed the Blue Dog Democrats to strip out the single payer option.

 

Medicare For All would be the most efficient system because you immediately take away the 30% overhead that the insurance companies charge. You'd shrink the labor force but expand the Medicare workforce which only operates on a 3% overhead.

 

Last you'd get rid of the Medicaid - a huge funding source to state governments which is often "borrowed" against. Not sure how this would be addressed. That said they state welfare workforce would also shrink due to not needing to staff and manage a Medicaid office.

 

You might want to dig in to those overhead numbers and make sure they're comparable.

 

Since they're probably not, given that private insurance and Medicare/Medicaid use wildly different accounting systems.

[IDBillzFan]

Obama f'd this when he allowed the Blue Dog Democrats to strip out the single payer option.

 

The Blue Dog Dems were part of the plan to get a majority in both houses, and it worked. He wasn't going to get a majority in both houses by running your standard far left Liz Warren nutbags in purple areas, so they ran more moderate Dems who had a chance.

 

That said, the problem wasn't that he allowed them to strip out single payer. The problem was that the law was written by umpteen people with money-grabbing self-interests, none of which involved the country's citizens, and it was forced through because time was running out and opposition was growing across the country. It literally took the president spending weeks openly and blatantly lying to the world to keep momentum moving.

 

As a result, his first two years basically included the abortion known as ACA, the money-laundering Recovery Act, and naively embarrassing Cash for Clunkers scheme.

 

Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Yes. Immoral.

 

As I said upthread: Because it both a) redistributes resources from those who have earned them to those who have not presuming to steal from them, and b) because it reduces the quality of care and access to doctors for all Americans.

Actually Medicare as it is NOW is immoral. Old farts stealing money from people who add to the economy. Opening it up to everyone would be less so. Same with social security. Edited February 28, 2017 by joesixpack

[keepthefaith]

 

Obama f'd this when he allowed the Blue Dog Democrats to strip out the single payer option.

 

Medicare For All would be the most efficient system because you immediately take away the 30% overhead that the insurance companies charge. You'd shrink the labor force but expand the Medicare workforce which only operates on a 3% overhead.

 

Last you'd get rid of the Medicaid - a huge funding source to state governments which is often "borrowed" against. Not sure how this would be addressed. That said they state welfare workforce would also shrink due to not needing to staff and manage a Medicaid office.

Which leads to the age old question, who pays for it and how?

Edited February 28, 2017 by keepthefaith

[TakeYouToTasker]

Actually Medicare as it is NOW is immoral. Old farts stealing money from people who add to the economy. Opening it up to everyone would be less so. Same with social security.

Please explain to me how using the force of armed government agents to remove my justly earned property and handing it over to someone they deem to be more deserving is moral.

 

Then explain how forcing more individuals into this system of state dependency is more moral.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Please explain to me how using the force of armed government agents to remove my justly earned property and handing it over to someone they deem to be more deserving is moral.

 

Then explain how forcing more individuals into this system of state dependency is more moral.

So you're not paying taxes then?

 

If I'm being forced to pay social security/Medicare taxes I damn well have a right to those services.

 

Ideally yes we shouldn't have the taxes. But given that we do, maybe we should make it as equitable as possible, including a flat tax on ALL income, not just earned income.

[Meathead]

Obama f'd this when he allowed the Blue Dog Democrats to strip out the single payer option.

 

Medicare For All would be the most efficient system because you immediately take away the 30% overhead that the insurance companies charge. You'd shrink the labor force but expand the Medicare workforce which only operates on a 3% overhead.

 

Last you'd get rid of the Medicaid - a huge funding source to state governments which is often "borrowed" against. Not sure how this would be addressed. That said they state welfare workforce would also shrink due to not needing to staff and manage a Medicaid office.

 

agreed

 

todays united states has more medical resources per capita than any civilization in human history. those resources should be used to address the hc needs of the entire population, and its immoral that we instead play political games to determine who gets to be healthy, who gets to be sick, and who we sacrifice for our political side to win

 

btw, ive read the rest of what everyone posted and theres nothing in there worth replying to bc its all partisan spinning. i know exactly what happened bc i paid close attention, and i stand by what i said

[Tiberius]

Which leads to the age old question, who pays for it and how?

We do. Who pays for our sewer systems? We do. Want to go without that public health measure?

[TakeYouToTasker]

So you're not paying taxes then?

 

My view on paying taxes is that if you don't pay your taxes you can't spend your money, so make sure you stay on the right said of the laws in place. With that said, taxation is immoral when it is compulsory. The only sort of taxation which even approaches justice is a consumption tax, which allows to citizen to control his tax burden through buying habits.

 

 

 

If I'm being forced to pay social security/Medicare taxes I damn well have a right to those services.

a) You shouldn't be being taxed for those services. Those services shouldn't exist.

 

b) Why would you want to use those services? They are drastically inferior to market based products available to consumers. Social Security, for example, forcibly takes earning from you, and pays you out a much lower rate of return than you may have experienced in the market. It also does great harm to the creation of intergenerational wealth, as unlike many private sector investment vehicles, cannot be passed along to beneficiaries.

 

 

 

Ideally yes we shouldn't have the taxes.

Stick with this argument.

 

 

 

But given that we do, maybe we should make it as equitable as possible, including a flat tax on ALL income, not just earned income.

But since we do, we should make it as ****ty as possible for as many people as possible? That's horrible logic.

 

agreed

 

todays united states has more medical resources per capita than any civilization in human history. those resources should be used to address the hc needs of the entire population, and its immoral that we instead play political games to determine who gets to be healthy, who gets to be sick, and who we sacrifice for our political side to win

 

Individuals have a huge say in their own health, health care, and health insurance through the choices they make. Those who make worse choices trend towards worse outcomes. And the games aren't political. Health care is a commodity. It is owned by individual actors who create the product. By nationalizing it you make slaves of men. It is immoral.

 

 

 

btw, ive read the rest of what everyone posted and theres nothing in there worth replying to bc its all partisan spinning. i know exactly what happened bc i paid close attention, and i stand by what i said

No, you don't. You're a revisionist who enjoys grandstanding, and cannot refute a single thing posted in opposition. This is par for the course with you. Do better.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

But since we do, we should make it as ****ty as possible for as many people as possible? That's horrible logic

It's reality-based logic. No one likes paying taxes, everyone would love to stop paying them. But they're not going away. Not in my or your lifetime. The tax system is, in its current form, biased toward the wealthy in a way that's untenable. If you taxed all income at one rate, you'd see tax burdens equally distributed over all income strata AND you'd affect a reduction in IRS power and bureaucracy. I'd say that's a win win.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's reality-based logic. No one likes paying taxes, everyone would love to stop paying them. But they're not going away. Not in my or your lifetime. The tax system is, in its current form, biased toward the wealthy in a way that's untenable. If you taxed all income at one rate, you'd see tax burdens equally distributed over all income strata AND you'd affect a reduction in IRS power and bureaucracy. I'd say that's a win win.

The tax code is not biased towards the wealthy. The top 1% of earners pay nearly 50% of the entire federal burden. Even more hilarious, the top 40% of earners pay 106% of the federal burden while the bottom 40% of earners pay -9%. Negative nine percent.

 

The tax code is structured in a way that it is used to incentivize certain types of behavior, and disincentivize other behaviors. If one considers it wise to seek to incentivize large scale private investment in the economy, then it makes sense to have lower taxes on investments.

[keepthefaith]

We do. Who pays for our sewer systems? We do. Want to go without that public health measure?

Define "we" and how much for "we" and what level of service do all get and what do "we" do if we aren't satisfied with the service?

 

The government, because it pays diddly squat for medicaid services and a little more than diddly squat for Medicare services, would have to significantly increase it's payments for services in order to pay the average of what is being paid now. Private insurers typically pay higher rates and since many hospitals and other medical services are not for profits, there isn't a whole lot to squeeze out.

Edited February 28, 2017 by keepthefaith

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The tax code is not biased towards the wealthy. The top 1% of earners pay nearly 50% of the entire federal burden. Even more hilarious, the top 40% of earners pay 106% of the federal burden while the bottom 40% of earners pay -9%. Negative nine percent.

 

The tax code is structured in a way that it is used to incentivize certain types of behavior, and disincentivize other behaviors. If one considers it wise to seek to incentivize large scale private investment in the economy, then it makes sense to have lower taxes on investments.

You'll get no argument from me about the bottom 40%. They should share the burden too. 70 years ago, we were the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth despite the wealthy paying a far higher burden than today. I'm not advocating a return to that. But people who don't have much earned income ( the rich and poor alike) get off way too easily here. It's the middle class that's shafted.

 

Progressive taxation is the problem here. It's inequitable.

Edited February 28, 2017 by joesixpack