Republican position on healthcare.

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by j-c-c » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:18 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:11 pm
Along with free health care, there needs to be free land, cut the size of national parks down to a 1/32 of what they are now, with all the refugees coming here land with no building codes or restrictions is what is needed, there are too many homeless people as it is. Get rid of the demonrat over priced housing. Yes back to liberty and the right to have property.
Didn't know being a slum lord was by party affiliation. #-o
can't wait for the drilling rigs to get started in Yosemite, Mt Rushmore, Grand Canyon, etc.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by exhaustgases » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:22 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:18 pm
exhaustgases wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:11 pm
Along with free health care, there needs to be free land, cut the size of national parks down to a 1/32 of what they are now, with all the refugees coming here land with no building codes or restrictions is what is needed, there are too many homeless people as it is. Get rid of the demonrat over priced housing. Yes back to liberty and the right to have property.
Didn't know being a slum lord was by party affiliation. #-o
can't wait for the drilling rigs to get started in Yosemite, Mt Rushmore, Grand Canyon, etc.
Your a demon rat and don't want free stuff? Crazy :roll:

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by j-c-c » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:29 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:22 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:18 pm
exhaustgases wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:11 pm
Along with free health care, there needs to be free land, cut the size of national parks down to a 1/32 of what they are now, with all the refugees coming here land with no building codes or restrictions is what is needed, there are too many homeless people as it is. Get rid of the demonrat over priced housing. Yes back to liberty and the right to have property.
Didn't know being a slum lord was by party affiliation. #-o
can't wait for the drilling rigs to get started in Yosemite, Mt Rushmore, Grand Canyon, etc.
Your a demon rat and don't want free stuff? Crazy :roll:
If that is a question, don't make me repeat it, but that is pointless request on my part, No, and No. [-X

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 86_regal » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:16 pm

pdq67 wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:28 pm
86_regal wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:26 pm
rebelrouser wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:31 pm


So the real elephant in the room is, only healthy people should receive and pay for health care, if your sick, just do everybody a favor and die, right? Typical insurance catch 22, pay your premiums, but don't try and collect, as it cuts into the profits, they always can come up with a reason not to pay. Insurance is a gamble and funny how insurance companies always try and renege on the bet. Every modern industrial country in the world provides health care for its citizens except for the USA. Some how Republicans have convinced their followers that going bankrupt any time you have a health problem is normal, and if your sick, why would you need to buy health insurance? Have you ever seen a sick and dying family member that was just to expensive to try and get healthy? Check your facts, we do agree not have the best health care in the world, other people live longer and pay much less than we do. Another example of people believing their own propaganda.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... item-start
I'm not seeing anything you've stated bear resemblance to a response to the questions I asked or the points I made.

Only healthy people should pay for and receive health care? I certainly agree that if "healthy" people pay for care, they should receive care. In the interest of applying the SAME rules to EVERYONE, ALL PEOPLE sick, healthy, small, large, tall, short, fat, rich, poor, etc. should receive health care when they pay for it.

Seems to me you're conflating health CARE and health INSURANCE coverage, they're not the same thing. Vehicle repairs or "auto care" such as changing oil, brakes and wiper blades, paid for entirely by YOU, is NOT the same as "auto insurance" which covers costs associated with auto accidents such as vehicle collision repairs and personal medical care in the event of injury, the cost of such coverage paid for by YOU to pay for the aforementioned costs, are paid by the insurance provider.

With that out of the way. Health insurance plan coverage terms are pre-defined. If an insurance company reneged on they're contractual obligations, they'd be facing a hell of a PR shitstorm which would not serve their future profits well. In fact, there are many cases in which Insurance Companies have covered high cost treatments despite there being no obligation just to prevent such bad press.

In terms of INSURANCE coverage of pre-existing conditions is a contradiction in terms. Again I ask, would it be a wise financial decision for a Home insurance company to cover the costs of homes that have already burned down? NO
I suppose theoretically an insurance company could provide coverage for virtually ANYTHING, I'm confident many wouldn't like the costs of such plans.

Sure, there's unscrupulous actors in the health insurance industry hell bent on plundering their clients to increase profits as there are in virtually all market sectors. How long will these insurance companies remain in business if they build a reputation for such conduct; not long.

Yes, health insurance is a gamble. The applicable catch 22 axiom of insurance is lamenting having to pay for it to have it when you don't need it and lamenting that you hadn't paid for it when you do need it.

As I've stated in the past in other contexts, prices are signals representing the costs and profits associated to produce a product of good, in large part due to the REAL WORLD effects of the scarcity of finite resources. There are no benefits without costs, NOTHING is free. So to answer your question (that I've already answered, rooted in the constraints of the REAL WORLD) IF you contract a disease that CAN be treated but at a LEGITIMATE cost $100K and you don't have or cannot get $100K, then YES, you are going to die. To influence our government officials through lobbying, PAC contributions, funding of special interest groups and the disparagment and mischaracterization of those in opposition to Universal Health Care to assure YOUR Health Care costs are covered at the FORCEFULLY EXTRACTED expense of everyone else NOT in need of it is no less ethically egregious and, IN PRINCIPLE, no different than the litany of corporate tax breaks, subsidies and special legal protections you justifiably bemoan.

Despite the serious ethical concerns of Socialization, the efficacy of such schemes is equally troubling.

The appeal of Socializing health care or Socialism in general, is the perceived benefit of diverting ones own individual costs (such as YOU Rebel, a person having reached retirement age, with little concern for having to fund this program yourself) onto everyone else, completely ignorant of the irrefutable law of scarcity leading many to indulgance and exploitation of those benefits for having been "insulated" from those costs INVARIABLY resulting in bankruptcy

Which I must add, doesn't sound very "Socialist" to me...
And where did this rant get C&P'd from??

pdq67
This one's all mine...

I just want to make sure what I'm saying in this "rant" is clear.
If rebel, J-C-C, Firedome and company want to create a "cyber commune" with thousands or millions of others to pool their money together to pay for the health care services of each contributor, have at it...

To suggest that the SAME entity that has collected and squandered TRILLIONS of Social Security/Medicare contributions be given plenary authority over a single payer health care system is a wise viable option is completely dillusional...

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by j-c-c » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:31 pm

"To suggest that the SAME entity that has collected and squandered TRILLIONS of Social Security/Medicare contributions be given plenary authority over a single payer health care system is a wise viable option is completely dillusional..."

How delusional is it to have same entity spend 54%? of the national budget on one department, completely un audited, without question?

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 86_regal » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:43 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:31 pm
"To suggest that the SAME entity that has collected and squandered TRILLIONS of Social Security/Medicare contributions be given plenary authority over a single payer health care system is a wise viable option is completely dillusional..."

How delusional is it to have same entity spend 54%? of the national budget on one department, completely un audited, without question?
So you agree...???

I'm confused... You agree our government is, to put it VERY mildly, finanicially mismanaged and yet you want them to manage our health care system???

PS
Tsk, tsk J-C-C... [-X
Do not confuse/conflate or "pigeon hole" me with other run of the mill Republicans...

I am an advocate of maximizing personal freedom, which almost invariably means LESS government.

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 86_regal » Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:42 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:18 pm
exhaustgases wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:11 pm
Along with free health care, there needs to be free land, cut the size of national parks down to a 1/32 of what they are now, with all the refugees coming here land with no building codes or restrictions is what is needed, there are too many homeless people as it is. Get rid of the demonrat over priced housing. Yes back to liberty and the right to have property.
Didn't know being a slum lord was by party affiliation. #-o
can't wait for the drilling rigs to get started in Yosemite, Mt Rushmore, Grand Canyon, etc.
Slum lords got the Democrat Party cornered J-C-C.

Never has there been a more Absentee slumlord than the Federal Public Housing Initiative! Have you seen those places? I wouldn't recommend them to my enemies!

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7957
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by pdq67 » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:30 pm

86_regal wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:16 pm
pdq67 wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:28 pm
86_regal wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:26 pm


I'm not seeing anything you've stated bear resemblance to a response to the questions I asked or the points I made.

Only healthy people should pay for and receive health care? I certainly agree that if "healthy" people pay for care, they should receive care. In the interest of applying the SAME rules to EVERYONE, ALL PEOPLE sick, healthy, small, large, tall, short, fat, rich, poor, etc. should receive health care when they pay for it.

Seems to me you're conflating health CARE and health INSURANCE coverage, they're not the same thing. Vehicle repairs or "auto care" such as changing oil, brakes and wiper blades, paid for entirely by YOU, is NOT the same as "auto insurance" which covers costs associated with auto accidents such as vehicle collision repairs and personal medical care in the event of injury, the cost of such coverage paid for by YOU to pay for the aforementioned costs, are paid by the insurance provider.

With that out of the way. Health insurance plan coverage terms are pre-defined. If an insurance company reneged on they're contractual obligations, they'd be facing a hell of a PR shitstorm which would not serve their future profits well. In fact, there are many cases in which Insurance Companies have covered high cost treatments despite there being no obligation just to prevent such bad press.

In terms of INSURANCE coverage of pre-existing conditions is a contradiction in terms. Again I ask, would it be a wise financial decision for a Home insurance company to cover the costs of homes that have already burned down? NO
I suppose theoretically an insurance company could provide coverage for virtually ANYTHING, I'm confident many wouldn't like the costs of such plans.

Sure, there's unscrupulous actors in the health insurance industry hell bent on plundering their clients to increase profits as there are in virtually all market sectors. How long will these insurance companies remain in business if they build a reputation for such conduct; not long.

Yes, health insurance is a gamble. The applicable catch 22 axiom of insurance is lamenting having to pay for it to have it when you don't need it and lamenting that you hadn't paid for it when you do need it.

As I've stated in the past in other contexts, prices are signals representing the costs and profits associated to produce a product of good, in large part due to the REAL WORLD effects of the scarcity of finite resources. There are no benefits without costs, NOTHING is free. So to answer your question (that I've already answered, rooted in the constraints of the REAL WORLD) IF you contract a disease that CAN be treated but at a LEGITIMATE cost $100K and you don't have or cannot get $100K, then YES, you are going to die. To influence our government officials through lobbying, PAC contributions, funding of special interest groups and the disparagment and mischaracterization of those in opposition to Universal Health Care to assure YOUR Health Care costs are covered at the FORCEFULLY EXTRACTED expense of everyone else NOT in need of it is no less ethically egregious and, IN PRINCIPLE, no different than the litany of corporate tax breaks, subsidies and special legal protections you justifiably bemoan.

Despite the serious ethical concerns of Socialization, the efficacy of such schemes is equally troubling.

The appeal of Socializing health care or Socialism in general, is the perceived benefit of diverting ones own individual costs (such as YOU Rebel, a person having reached retirement age, with little concern for having to fund this program yourself) onto everyone else, completely ignorant of the irrefutable law of scarcity leading many to indulgance and exploitation of those benefits for having been "insulated" from those costs INVARIABLY resulting in bankruptcy

Which I must add, doesn't sound very "Socialist" to me...
And where did this rant get C&P'd from??

pdq67
This one's all mine...

I just want to make sure what I'm saying in this "rant" is clear.
If rebel, J-C-C, Firedome and company want to create a "cyber commune" with thousands or millions of others to pool their money together to pay for the health care services of each contributor, have at it...

To suggest that the SAME entity that has collected and squandered TRILLIONS of Social Security/Medicare contributions be given plenary authority over a single payer health care system is a wise viable option is completely dillusional...
I think that, "Lloyd's of London", will insure ANYTHING for a price! D

idn't they insure Betty Grable's legs?

pdq67

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by j-c-c » Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:28 pm

86_regal wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:43 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:31 pm
"To suggest that the SAME entity that has collected and squandered TRILLIONS of Social Security/Medicare contributions be given plenary authority over a single payer health care system is a wise viable option is completely dillusional..."

How delusional is it to have same entity spend 54%? of the national budget on one department, completely un audited, without question?
So you agree...???

I'm confused... You agree our government is, to put it VERY mildly, finanicially mismanaged and yet you want them to manage our health care system???

PS
Tsk, tsk J-C-C... [-X
Do not confuse/conflate or "pigeon hole" me with other run of the mill Republicans...

I am an advocate of maximizing personal freedom, which almost invariably means LESS government.
We agree to the extent that anytime you put government on autopilot and turn your back, you deserve to get screwed by incompetence and thievery.

As i just mentioned, few seem to have a problem with 54% of our national budget being spent that way, why all the sudden the righteousness with holding the health industry's feet to the fire, cut out all the greed/profiteering/monopolies in Pharma, Insurance, etc, and have a single payer system? There are countries that make it work, rather then constantly making Venezuela the socialist medicine poster child.

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 86_regal » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:32 am

pdq67 wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:30 pm
86_regal wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:16 pm
pdq67 wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:28 pm


And where did this rant get C&P'd from??

pdq67
This one's all mine...

I just want to make sure what I'm saying in this "rant" is clear.
If rebel, J-C-C, Firedome and company want to create a "cyber commune" with thousands or millions of others to pool their money together to pay for the health care services of each contributor, have at it...

To suggest that the SAME entity that has collected and squandered TRILLIONS of Social Security/Medicare contributions be given plenary authority over a single payer health care system is a wise viable option is completely dillusional...
I think that, "Lloyd's of London", will insure ANYTHING for a price! D

idn't they insure Betty Grable's legs?

pdq67
'Tis true sir, for the right price anything can be insured.

The way I see it, the gaggle of superfluous government AND Corporate Insurance bureaucracy is the hot air that is inflating the cost bubble. The answer, simplicity.

Simpler IS better, simpler IS cheaper...

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 86_regal » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:16 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:28 pm
86_regal wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:43 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:31 pm
"To suggest that the SAME entity that has collected and squandered TRILLIONS of Social Security/Medicare contributions be given plenary authority over a single payer health care system is a wise viable option is completely dillusional..."

How delusional is it to have same entity spend 54%? of the national budget on one department, completely un audited, without question?
So you agree...???

I'm confused... You agree our government is, to put it VERY mildly, finanicially mismanaged and yet you want them to manage our health care system???

PS
Tsk, tsk J-C-C... [-X
Do not confuse/conflate or "pigeon hole" me with other run of the mill Republicans...

I am an advocate of maximizing personal freedom, which almost invariably means LESS government.
We agree to the extent that anytime you put government on autopilot and turn your back, you deserve to get screwed by incompetence and thievery.

As i just mentioned, few seem to have a problem with 54% of our national budget being spent that way, why all the sudden the righteousness with holding the health industry's feet to the fire, cut out all the greed/profiteering/monopolies in Pharma, Insurance, etc, and have a single payer system? There are countries that make it work, rather then constantly making Venezuela the socialist medicine poster child.
Autopilot???

When has the US Government NOT been on this "autopilot" you speak of??? When has US Government spending reduced from the year before in the past 60 years??? When has US Government decreased in scope in the past 60 years???

I will also ask you this.
IF/when the US government was taken off of "autopilot" I ask you to name a SINGLE government program that was abolished due to a lack of efficacy or inefficiency...?

As for those countries that "make it work", I hark back to what I've said before.

It doesn't require a biased right wing "pro business" article loaded with misleading statistics, it simply requires an understanding of basic & irrefutable economic laws to know...

When restraints are placed on cost, restraints WILL be imposed on quality and/or availability. The largest Big Pharma mogul on the globe isn't going to endure selling a product at $80 that costs a $100 dollars to produce. The result WILL BE reduced quality and rationing, period. Add in the incompetency and theivery and we're going to have a real mess on our hands...

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 86_regal » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:23 pm

PS

I will argue the VA Hospital system serves as a Case Study and provides valuable insight into what our Single Payer System would look like.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3932
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by j-c-c » Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:11 am

86_regal wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:23 pm
PS

I will argue the VA Hospital system serves as a Case Study and provides valuable insight into what our Single Payer System would look like.
So eliminating the VA would be better for a few or all vets?

I am not sure The VA is a true single payer system for comparison sake.

I don't want to for a second suggest the government can do much of anything right except print money, nor the current health care system is remarkable other then being greedy for the few that can afford them..

86_regal
Pro
Pro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by 86_regal » Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:01 am

j-c-c wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:11 am
86_regal wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:23 pm
PS

I will argue the VA Hospital system serves as a Case Study and provides valuable insight into what our Single Payer System would look like.
So eliminating the VA would be better for a few or all vets?

I am not sure The VA is a true single payer system for comparison sake.

I don't want to for a second suggest the government can do much of anything right except print money, nor the current health care system is remarkable other then being greedy for the few that can afford them..
I'm saying that allowing options to vets would inevitably result the dissolution of the VA. But of course we know that won't happen...

Regarding the efficacy of government, we agree. If the private enterprise health care system were expected to compete, prices would drop as competition itself is a check against greed.

Firedome8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3923
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:16 pm

Re: Republican position on healthcare.

Post by Firedome8 » Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:28 am

86_regal wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:01 am
j-c-c wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:11 am
86_regal wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:23 pm
PS

I will argue the VA Hospital system serves as a Case Study and provides valuable insight into what our Single Payer System would look like.
So eliminating the VA would be better for a few or all vets?

I am not sure The VA is a true single payer system for comparison sake.

I don't want to for a second suggest the government can do much of anything right except print money, nor the current health care system is remarkable other then being greedy for the few that can afford them..
I'm saying that allowing options to vets would inevitably result the dissolution of the VA. But of course we know that won't happen...

Regarding the efficacy of government, we agree. If the private enterprise health care system were expected to compete, prices would drop as competition itself is a check against greed.
How did it work before the aca ? I remember a quote of 6000.00 a month premium with 6000.00 deductible. Now its 1250.00 with 6000.00 deductible. Why didn't competition work then ? Is capitalism and health care incompatible ? How would it work with out oversight ? Get sick go bankrupt die in the streets? My ignorance is showing and could i use a lesson on this subject. My understanding is the ACA was a conservative idea before Democrats inacted it and the obama haters changed the story.

Post Reply