Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: wesfau2 on March 07, 2017, 09:00:33 AM
-
Thoughts on the Republican plan?
-
Maybe they will pass it so we can read it!
-
Thoughts on the Republican plan?
Haven't read it.
Won't read it, probably.
Already know it's better because it doesn't have the word "Obama" attached to it. That piece of trash needs to just be a historical footnote next to the word "failed."
-
It is DOA.
NEITHER side will pass it. For opposite reasons.
-
Haven't read it.
Won't read it, probably.
Already know it's better because it doesn't have the word "Obama" attached to it. That piece of trash needs to just be a historical footnote next to the word "failed."
Blind allegiance. Atta boy!
-
Already know it's better because it doesn't have the word "Obama" attached to it.
:facepalm:
I could have scripted this response from you...
-
:facepalm:
I could have scripted this response from you...
He's the worst president in the history of the United States. Likely the most corrupt.
Anything he did is worthless to me.
-
It is DOA.
NEITHER side will pass it. For opposite reasons.
And then each side will blame the other side for hating Americans.
-
He's the worst president in the history of the United States. Likely the most corrupt.
Anything he did is worthless to me.
Here's a tip for how to have people who are not as hyperpartisan and tribalistic as you take anything you say even remotely seriously.
Take that exact quote and pretend it's Prowler saying it about Trump. How does it sound? Idiotic? Chances are that's exactly what people think of your post.
-
I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison of the changes because honestly, I haven't seen enough about the Repub plan to comment much. I've seen that pre-existing conditions won't be affected and coverage won't be precluded on the new plans. (No brainer) It also appears that individual requirements to carry coverage and the penalties associated for non-compliance will be done away with. Maybe that was just part of the early rhetoric I'm basing that on.
Have done little research on the new proposals.
-
I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison of the changes because honestly, I haven't seen enough about the Repub plan to comment much. I've seen that pre-existing conditions won't be affected and coverage won't be precluded on the new plans. (No brainer) It also appears that individual requirements to carry coverage and the penalties associated for non-compliance will be done away with. Maybe that was just part of the early rhetoric I'm basing that on.
Have done little research on the new proposals.
This is a good write-up from conservative Avik Roy for center-right Forbes. Roy has been critical of Obamacare from the start.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/07/house-gops-obamacare-replacement-will-make-coverage-unaffordable-for-millions-otherwise-its-great/#7714c34037fd
House GOP's Obamacare Replacement Will Make Coverage Unaffordable For Millions -- Otherwise, It's Great
Avik RoyAvik Roy, Forbes Staff
That’s not an ironic headline. Leading House Republicans have included a number of transformative and consequential reforms in their American Health Care Act, the full text of which was published Monday evening. But those reforms are overshadowed by the bill’s stubborn desire to make health insurance unaffordable for millions of Americans, and trap millions more in poverty. Can such a bill garner the near-universal Republican support it will need to pass Congress?
The good: Medicaid reform
The strongest part of the American Health Care Act, by far, is its overhaul of Medicaid, the developed world’s worst insurance program. In 2013, a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that people on Medicaid had no better outcomes than those with no insurance at all.
That’s because the program’s dysfunctional 1965 design makes it impossible for states to manage their Medicaid budgets without ratcheting down what they pay doctors to care for Medicaid enrollees. That, in turn, has led many doctors to stop accepting Medicaid patients, such that Medicaid enrollees don’t get the care they need.
The AHCA takes important steps to strengthen the Medicaid program, by converting its funding into a per-capita allotment that would give states the flexibility they need to modernize the program. It’s an idea that was first proposed by Bill Clinton in 1995 as an alternative to block grants, and one that could give Medicare enrollees the access to physicians and specialists that they struggle to have today.
Relative to the leaked AHCA draft from February 10, the new bill makes an important tweak to its Medicaid reforms. It improves the transition away from Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, by preserving the 90 percent federal match rate past 2020 for people who had signed up for the expansion prior to that year. That helps expansion states cover those individuals without significant disruptions in funding.
The bad: Obamacare exchange replacement
Unfortunately, the AHCA’s efforts at replacing Obamacare's health insurance exchanges are problematic. A key limitation is that Republicans have decided to repeal and replace Obamacare on a party-line vote using the Senate’s reconciliation process. But reconciliation can only repeal Obamacare’s taxes and spending; it can’t replace most of the law’s premium-hiking insurance regulations.
The AHCA does make an effort to repeal Obamacare’s two costliest regulations: its requirement that plans charge similar premiums to the young and the old (age-based community rating); and its requirement that plans contain generous financial payouts (high actuarial value). So far, so good.
But the plan, due to the reconciliation process, appears to leave the vast majority of Obamacare’s regulations in place. The February 10 leaked draft contained language that would have returned control of essential health benefits to the states. That language appears to have been deleted.
Worse still, the bill contains an arbitrary “continuous coverage†provision, in which those who sign up for coverage outside of the normal open enrollment period would pay a 30 percent surcharge to the normal insurance premium. This surcharge is an arbitrary price control. While 30 percent represents an approximate average of the additional health risk of late enrollees, the 30 percent provision incentivizes those who face much higher costs to sign up, forcing insurers to cover them at a loss. This seems like a recipe for adverse selection death spirals.
The critical mistake of the AHCA is its insistence on flat, non-means-tested tax credits. The flat credit will price many poor and vulnerable people out of the health insurance market.
As I wrote last month, the AHCA creates a steep benefit cliff between those on Medicaid (subsidizing approximately $6,000 per patient per year), and those just above the poverty line who will get tax credits of about $3,000. People just below poverty will be strongly disincentivized to make more money, effectively trapping them in poverty.
Unlike in the February 10 leaked draft, in which the tax credits were available to everyone regardless of income, the AHCA begins to phase them out for those earning $75,000 a year, or $150,000 for joint filers. For every $1,000 in earnings above those thresholds, the value of the credit phases down by $100. Hence, for a single 40-something, the credit would phase out at $105,000 in income.
Amazingly, these thresholds are far more generous than Obamacare’s. Obamacare’s tax credits phase out at 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, or $48,240 in 2017. The AHCA’s tax credits would phase out somewhere above 850 percent of FPL.
As I note in Transcending Obamacare, the means-tested tax credit should actually go in the other direction, phasing out somewhere around 300 percent of FPL. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the vast majority of people making more than 300 percent of FPL have access to employer-sponsored coverage, and don’t need an individual-market tax credit.
The AHCA's transitional schedule of means-tested tax credits. House Ways & Means Committee
The AHCA's transitional schedule of means-tested tax credits.
The terrible: Sabotaging Medicaid and employer health reform
What’s so wasteful about all this is that the AHCA buries a much better idea within its own text. The bill contains a transitional schedule of means-tested, age-adjusted tax credits that would actually improve the individual health insurance market in combination with the bill’s regulatory reforms. The AHCA would be dramatically improved by junking the flat tax credit I described in the previous section of this article, and instead preserving the means-tested schedule in the above table.
The irony is that the AHCA’s stubborn insistence on a flat tax credit has put its promising Medicaid reforms in jeopardy. As I noted above, the Medicaid expansion offers enrollees subsidies of about $6,000 per year. The ACA exchanges, wisely, carry that subsidy along and phase it out gradually at 400 percent of FPL. By creating a benefit cliff, the AHCA gives Medicaid expansion states a strong incentive to oppose repeal of the Medicaid expansion. If the AHCA simply used the above table to means-test its tax credit, states could walk away from the Medicaid expansion, knowing their residents would have robust options for private health insurance.
The exclusion from all taxation for employer-based health insurance is the original sin of the U.S. health care system, the reason why its costs are far higher than those of every other advanced nation. GOP health reform has long sought to reform the employer tax exclusion, in order to lower health care costs and make coverage more affordable for all.
The February 10 leaked draft contained a well-designed and significant reform of the employer tax exclusion, in which employer-based insurance plans exceeding the 90th percentile in value would have their excess costs included as taxable income. That provision was deleted in the current AHCA draft and replaced by a postponement—but not repeal—of Obamacare’s Cadillac tax.
Here, again, the problem is the interaction between the AHCA’s generous tax credit and the employer-based health insurance system. The availability of the credit to upper-income workers means that employers would have a strong incentive to drop their sponsorship of coverage. A more focused tax credit would have avoided this problem.
Plowing ahead without the CBO
The American Health Care Act repeals nearly all of Obamacare’s taxes, save the postponement of the Cadillac tax. But Obamacare’s tax hikes comprised about 60 percent of its funding for the law’s coverage expansion. So the $2 trillion question is: does the AHCA explode the deficit, or is it relying on steep Medicaid cuts to keep the deficit in line? We won’t know until the CBO scores the bill.
But, remarkably, House GOP leadership plans to move forward with marking up the bill on Wednesday without even having the CBO score available. It’s not clear why they’re proceeding without a score, but it means that members of the House Energy & Commerce and Ways & Means Committees will not have the information they need to make informed decisions about how best to revise the bill.
The CBO is likely to score the AHCA as covering around 20 million fewer Americans than Obamacare. There are flaws in the way the CBO models health reform legislation, but the AHCA itself contains enough flaws that there can be little doubt that the plan will price millions out of the health insurance market.
Expanding subsidies for high earners, and cutting health coverage off from the working poor: it sounds like a left-wing caricature of mustache-twirling, top-hatted Republican fat cats. But not today.
-
So employers, like our esteemed captains of industry here on the X, are disincentivized from providing employee coverage.
Wasn't that a major complaint about ACA?
Premiums go up, millions are unable to get insurance and the wealthy get some sweet tax breaks.
Awesome deal!
-
This is a good write-up from conservative Avik Roy for center-right Forbes. Roy has been critical of Obamacare from the start.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/07/house-gops-obamacare-replacement-will-make-coverage-unaffordable-for-millions-otherwise-its-great/#7714c34037fd
My honest take on ACA and the future of it...
It was a massive redistribution of wealth disguised as a social program. It was played on people's emotion and well being. To make healthcare affordable (translate to subsidized or free) for 20% of the population, prices increased on the other 80%. Sorry but that's wealth redistribution at its finest. It was a giant ponzi scheme from the start in the fact that it needed x number of healthy young people paying premiums or a "mandate tax" for it to break even at best. That hasnt happened. Insurance companies have also hedged, are charging most of us much more for our existing plans and they are making money hand over foot.
The problem now is we have millions on the dole. What do we do with them? That's the magic question. Now we're in a quandary. Do you throw people to the wolves? But do you also let other continue to pick up the tab for them? Neither is right.
I feel like we could have taken some smaller more incremental steps to fix our issues than to implement this pile of garbage. State line removal and competition, focus on decreasing hc COSTS (nobody seems to address this), pre existing condition reform, age limit reform, etc. These things would have put a big dent in the issue.
-
Here's a tip for how to have people who are not as hyperpartisan and tribalistic as you take anything you say even remotely seriously.
Take that exact quote and pretend it's Prowler saying it about Trump. How does it sound? Idiotic? Chances are that's exactly what people think of your post.
How can it be the same? We don't have 8 years of Trump to compare to. Bad comparison. Did not get your point across.
-
So employers, like our esteemed captains of industry here on the X, are disincentivized from providing employee coverage.
Wasn't that a major complaint about ACA?
Premiums go up, millions are unable to get insurance and the wealthy get some sweet tax breaks.
Awesome deal!
i haven't read it yet but will do so in time.
i guess you could think in those regards...and it isn't wrong to do so. however, i look at an opportunity for businesses to choose rather than be forced upon the federal government on an inferior product that did in fact make it costly to the employee and employer...directly, indirectly or both.
i don't think businesses [perhaps a few] will do away from offering health insurance. jobs are being created and are currently available. i think business will market themselves strongly with pay and benefits...that's what middle class american wants and needs.
i don't think you'll see premiums go up. it will be a competitive market.
rich get richer regardless...including the lawyers on the X.
as far as the millions that will go uninsured...well that is a bone you have thrown out and i am not running after it.
-
i haven't read it yet
i guess
i don't think
i don't think
Edit note: That's unfair to you, nook. None of us have read it, but the pie in the sky hopes and dreams in your post seem about as likely as a Kaos/Prowler 69.
-
you're such a direct asshole.
-
you're such a direct asshole.
No doubt.
But, I did edit it while you were posting.
Hug it out?
-
i look at an opportunity for businesses to choose rather than be forced upon the federal government
jobs are being created and are currently available.
it will be a competitive market.
-
No doubt.
But, I did edit it while you were posting.
Hug it out?
i'll smoke it out. next time you visit in oregon.
-
Edit note: That's unfair to you, nook. None of us have read it, but the pie in the sky hopes and dreams in your post seem about as likely as a Kaos/Prowler 69.
Kinky
I would not watch. But would listen to cliff notes.
-
i'll smoke it out. next time you visit in oregon.
Guaranteed.
-
My honest take on ACA and the future of it...
It was a massive redistribution of wealth disguised as a social program. It was played on people's emotion and well being. To make healthcare affordable (translate to subsidized or free) for 20% of the population, prices increased on the other 80%. Sorry but that's wealth redistribution at its finest. It was a giant ponzi scheme from the start in the fact that it needed x number of healthy young people paying premiums or a "mandate tax" for it to break even at best. That hasnt happened. Insurance companies have also hedged, are charging most of us much more for our existing plans and they are making money hand over foot.
The problem now is we have millions on the dole. What do we do with them? That's the magic question. Now we're in a quandary. Do you throw people to the wolves? But do you also let other continue to pick up the tab for them? Neither is right.
I feel like we could have taken some smaller more incremental steps to fix our issues than to implement this pile of garbage. State line removal and competition, focus on decreasing hc COSTS (nobody seems to address this), pre existing condition reform, age limit reform, etc. These things would have put a big dent in the issue.
The good thing about this is that it is a start. I think it will be worked on over the next few months. I don't think we will get the ole, "We need to pass it ti see what's in it" rimjob!
But we will get the shriekers out in full force.
-
Blind allegiance. Atta boy!
Actually? You misunderstand for the one millionth time.
Blind allegiance? None.
Complete contempt for the Imam in Chief and Cruella DeClinton? Yes.
Over the past eight years I became convinced that their globalist/socialist world view (which has failed miserably every time it's been attempted with the exception of creating an autocratic ruling class) would doom this republic. It must all be swept away and as well as those who stupidly support it.
His creation must go. In a perfect world it would simply be eliminated and returned to the free market. But the gimmedats who care not where the money comes from so long as they don't supply it have already gotten a taste of "free shit" thanks to that son of a bitch and the socialist whore. So you can't go completely back.
-
Actually? You misunderstand for the one millionth time.
Blind allegiance? None.
Complete contempt for the Imam in Chief and Cruella DeClinton? Yes.
Over the past eight years I became convinced that their globalist/socialist world view (which has failed miserably every time it's been attempted with the exception of creating an autocratic ruling class) would doom this republic. It must all be swept away and as well as those who stupidly support it.
His creation must go. In a perfect world it would simply be eliminated and returned to the free market. But the gimmedats who care not where the money comes from so long as they don't supply it have already gotten a taste of "free shit" thanks to that son of a bitch and the socialist whore. So you can't go completely back.
You'll be happy to know that Americans For Prosperity is swarming DC today to get that full repeal you want.
-
You'll be happy to know that Americans For Prosperity is swarming DC today to get that full repeal you want.
You make decent arguments when not being obtuse. Unfortunately that's what you are being with this topic. You have to see how this legislation is a major problem in general. I'm not saying healthcare isn't an issue. This just isn't the way to do it. It's robin hood. I'll ask point blank - do you think that is the way this should work?
-
My honest take on ACA and the future of it...
It was a massive redistribution of wealth disguised as a social program. It was played on people's emotion and well being. To make healthcare affordable (translate to subsidized or free) for 20% of the population, prices increased on the other 80%. Sorry but that's wealth redistribution at its finest. It was a giant ponzi scheme from the start in the fact that it needed x number of healthy young people paying premiums or a "mandate tax" for it to break even at best. That hasnt happened. Insurance companies have also hedged, are charging most of us much more for our existing plans and they are making money hand over foot.
The problem now is we have millions on the dole. What do we do with them? That's the magic question. Now we're in a quandary. Do you throw people to the wolves? But do you also let other continue to pick up the tab for them? Neither is right.
I feel like we could have taken some smaller more incremental steps to fix our issues than to implement this pile of garbage. State line removal and competition, focus on decreasing hc COSTS (nobody seems to address this), pre existing condition reform, age limit reform, etc. These things would have put a big dent in the issue.
Yeah. Precisely. All of this.
But I'm all for the wolves. So there.
-
You make decent arguments when not being obtuse. Unfortunately that's what you are being with this topic. You have to see how this legislation is a major problem in general. I'm not saying healthcare isn't an issue. This just isn't the way to do it. It's robin hood. I'll ask point blank - do you think that is the way this should work?
What's obtuse is pretending this version is significantly better because Trump "authored" it.
-
What's obtuse is pretending this version is significantly better because Trump "authored" it.
Probably, yes. Even moreso is thinking that either is/was a good idea. I don't want govt in healthcare. I don't want them in marriage. And countless other things. Many rules and regulations that they have put in place are some of the very reason that healthcare is an issue. Getting out of the way would have done more good than anything. One example, let consumers shop across state lines. Opens up instant competition. Let high risk people pool together more easily. Simple things.
-
Probably, yes. Even moreso is thinking that either is/was a good idea. I don't want govt in healthcare. I don't want them in marriage. And countless other things. Many rules and regulations that they have put in place are some of the very reason that healthcare is an issue. Getting out of the way would have done more good than anything. One example, let consumers shop across state lines. Opens up instant competition. Let high risk people pool together more easily. Simple things.
Most rational thing I've seen posted in a while.
-
Probably, yes. Even moreso is thinking that either is/was a good idea. I don't want govt in healthcare. I don't want them in marriage. And countless other things. Many rules and regulations that they have put in place are some of the very reason that healthcare is an issue. Getting out of the way would have done more good than anything. One example, let consumers shop across state lines. Opens up instant competition. Let high risk people pool together more easily. Simple things.
That sounds awfully libertarianish of you.
-
What's obtuse is pretending this version is significantly better because Trump "authored" it.
I want it gone. Anything that eases toward that objective is inherently better.
Before the shit show that was "Obamacare" there was no healthcare crisis. Nobody was doing without. My employees are NOW, thanks to that fucking fuck.
So yeah. Anything's better.
End of discussion.
-
That sounds awfully libertarianish of you.
Many parts of the constitution are and should remain that way. Marriage and healthcare are two of them.
-
Before the shit show that was "Obamacare" there was no healthcare crisis. Nobody was doing without.
So wrong.
-
So wrong.
The plans on the private market were more affordable 7-8 years ago than they are now in the exchange. I had to plan shop and remember it vividly. The difference now is that people are getting subsidized. Others who don't get subsidized are paying out the ass. Moreso than what the private market was before ACA.
Do you think this is the way it (healthcare) should operate? Taking from some to cover others?
What I'm driving at here Wes is this - Is it a good long term solution to healthcare? Being dead serious. I think it's a very band aided approach. And misses the root issue of what most of the problem is. Which is COSTS.
-
So wrong.
There's not one single motherfucking soul in this country who did not have access to life saving measures.
I dont know what glass bubble world you live in but you should really get out more. Spend some time in the ghetto.
I owned a furniture store for almost a decade that catered to the "less than" class. I walked in that world every day. They could not be turned away if they took their kid to the emergency room with the sniffles. Which happened hundreds of thousand times a day. Bill? What bill. As Ethel Lee Johnson told me in reference to the stack of medical bills related to her seven children and three grandchildren (none of whom had or had ever had a job) "all you got to do is send 'em a dollar a month. They can't do shit about it"
Instead she spent the government disability (down in her back) checks, her welfare money and her kids 'crazy checks' with me... buying big screen TVs, stereos, VCRs, dining room sets, bed room sets, glass and brass etarges, lamps, freezers and other shit.
So don't even try to tell me people couldn't get care. There's a difference between being uninsured and being denied care.
-
^^^^^NOBODY is without healthcare!^^^^^
-
There's not one single motherfucking soul in this country who did not have access to life saving measures.
I dont know what glass bubble world you live in but you should really get out more. Spend some time in the ghetto.
I owned a furniture store for almost a decade that catered to the "less than" class. I walked in that world every day. They could not be turned away if they took their kid to the emergency room with the sniffles. Which happened hundreds of thousand times a day. Bill? What bill. As Ethel Lee Johnson told me in reference to the stack of medical bills related to her seven children and three grandchildren (none of whom had or had ever had a job) "all you got to do is send 'em a dollar a month. They can't do shit about it"
Instead she spent the government disability (down in her back) checks, her welfare money and her kids 'crazy checks' with me... buying big screen TVs, stereos, VCRs, dining room sets, bed room sets, glass and brass etarges, lamps, freezers and other shit.
So don't even try to tell me people couldn't get care. There's a difference between being uninsured and being denied care.
Wrong.
-
The plans on the private market were more affordable 7-8 years ago than they are now in the exchange. I had to plan shop and remember it vividly. The difference now is that people are getting subsidized. Others who don't get subsidized are paying out the ass. Moreso than what the private market was before ACA.
Do you think this is the way it (healthcare) should operate? Taking from some to cover others?
What I'm driving at here Wes is this - Is it a good long term solution to healthcare? Being dead serious. I think it's a very band aided approach. And misses the root issue of what most of the problem is. Which is COSTS.
Wrong.
-
Wrong.
i realize you're limited to caveman type but please tell us why he's wrong.
he is dead on.
-
i realize you're limited to caveman type but please tell us why he's wrong.
he is dead on.
Wrong.
-
Wrong.
Healthcare insurance as we know it today hasn't even existed for most of our country's existence. The issue is costs. People used to be able to go into a doctors office without it. In a perfect world we shouldn't need comprehensive bumper to bumper health insurance. But we do now. Because? Costs.
-
Healthcare insurance as we know it today hasn't even existed for most of our country's existence. The issue is costs. People used to be able to go into a doctors office without it. In a perfect world we shouldn't need comprehensive bumper to bumper health insurance. But we do now. Because? Costs.
Wrong.
I have no idea why. It just seemed like a fun game.
-
You make decent arguments when not being obtuse. Unfortunately that's what you are being with this topic. You have to see how this legislation is a major problem in general. I'm not saying healthcare isn't an issue. This just isn't the way to do it. It's robin hood. I'll ask point blank - do you think that is the way this should work?
Why did wes run away?
I want him to answer this one simple question.
Specifically, is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's medical insurance because I made better choices than they did?
My parents worked hard to support four kids and still found a way to save enough money to go back to school. My dad was working two jobs and going to college at night when I was three or four. My mom didn't start college until I was 16. And she ended up being a dean of a college. But we didn't have that much growing up. I had to wear Bargain Town Buddys instead of Nikes because that's what we could afford. I fucked around and drank my way out of college when I had a chance to go. By the time I decided to go back my brother and sister were in college and my dad couldn't help like he wanted. I had to pay my own way.
I worked for everything I have. I worked long hours, I worked shit jobs, I worked when I wanted to be home with my daughters. I've probably done more jobs than any three of you combined. Until the last five or six years, I've never had fewer than two jobs at a single time. And I always made sure I had insurance.
So please tell me why the FUCK I should pay higher insurance premiums -- mine have more than doubled since Obama took office -- so some assjack can get it for free? If it's my "moral obligation" then take it from what's given to the church. It shouldn't be my legal responsibility. I didn't take those bums to raise.
-
Why did wes run away?
I want him to answer this one simple question.
Specifically, is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's medical insurance because I made better choices than they did?
My parents worked hard to support four kids and still found a way to save enough money to go back to school. My dad was working two jobs and going to college at night when I was three or four. My mom didn't start college until I was 16. And she ended up being a dean of a college. But we didn't have that much growing up. I had to wear Bargain Town Buddys instead of Nikes because that's what we could afford. I fucked around and drank my way out of college when I had a chance to go. By the time I decided to go back my brother and sister were in college and my dad couldn't help like he wanted. I had to pay my own way.
I worked for everything I have. I worked long hours, I worked shit jobs, I worked when I wanted to be home with my daughters. I've probably done more jobs than any three of you combined. Until the last five or six years, I've never had fewer than two jobs at a single time. And I always made sure I had insurance.
So please tell me why the FUCK I should pay higher insurance premiums -- mine have more than doubled since Obama took office -- so some assjack can get it for free? If it's my "moral obligation" then take it from what's given to the church. It shouldn't be my legal responsibility. I didn't take those bums to raise.
The answer lies in one simple phrase.
WWBD
What Would Bernie Do?
-
Why did wes run away?
I want him to answer this one simple question.
Specifically, is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's medical insurance because I made better choices than they did?
My parents worked hard to support four kids and still found a way to save enough money to go back to school. My dad was working two jobs and going to college at night when I was three or four. My mom didn't start college until I was 16. And she ended up being a dean of a college. But we didn't have that much growing up. I had to wear Bargain Town Buddys instead of Nikes because that's what we could afford. I fucked around and drank my way out of college when I had a chance to go. By the time I decided to go back my brother and sister were in college and my dad couldn't help like he wanted. I had to pay my own way.
I worked for everything I have. I worked long hours, I worked shit jobs, I worked when I wanted to be home with my daughters. I've probably done more jobs than any three of you combined. Until the last five or six years, I've never had fewer than two jobs at a single time. And I always made sure I had insurance.
So please tell me why the FUCK I should pay higher insurance premiums -- mine have more than doubled since Obama took office -- so some assjack can get it for free? If it's my "moral obligation" then take it from what's given to the church. It shouldn't be my legal responsibility. I didn't take those bums to raise.
Wrong.
-
There's not one single motherfucking soul in this country who did not have access to life saving measures.
I dont know what glass bubble world you live in but you should really get out more. Spend some time in the ghetto.
I owned a furniture store for almost a decade that catered to the "less than" class. I walked in that world every day. They could not be turned away if they took their kid to the emergency room with the sniffles. Which happened hundreds of thousand times a day. Bill? What bill. As Ethel Lee Johnson told me in reference to the stack of medical bills related to her seven children and three grandchildren (none of whom had or had ever had a job) "all you got to do is send 'em a dollar a month. They can't do shit about it"
Instead she spent the government disability (down in her back) checks, her welfare money and her kids 'crazy checks' with me... buying big screen TVs, stereos, VCRs, dining room sets, bed room sets, glass and brass etarges, lamps, freezers and other shit.
So don't even try to tell me people couldn't get care. There's a difference between being uninsured and being denied care.
You're conflating two concepts: health insurance coverage and access to healthcare. Since we were talking about the first in this thread, this quote is exceedingly wrong:
Before the shit show that was "Obamacare" there was no healthcare crisis. Nobody was doing without.
Millions were uninsured and "went without", using our ERs as primary care facilities (which, thanks to EMTALA, they could do). THAT was our healthcare crisis. Rather than having access to routine preventative care, every sniffle and sneeze presented to the ER where they were federally mandated to be seen and stabilized before anyone was allowed to inquire as to their ability to pay.
The rest of your post is information I'm familiar with: my first job out of law school was as counsel for the largest ER physicians' group in GA. I helped with their hospital and managed care contracting, but the bulk of my job was supervising a team of 15 collectors and a skip-tracer trying to track down all the real people behind the fake names given at the metro-ATL emergency rooms. On a good month, our collections success rate was around 3%.
THAT was our healthcare crisis, because those uncollected bills were passed along to other, paying patients (more often those patients' insurance) in the form of higher average billing to absorb those costs.
I totally agree with GH that costs are the main problem and the bulk of the blame for the that component should rightfully be laid at the insurer's feet.
The ACA was not a panacea, and I don't believe it was intended to be. That said, it got coverage for millions who did not previously have access. Those millions COULD get routine, preventative care and forestall major medical calamities that would wreck not only their household finances permanently, but would, in the aggregate, continue to pull our healthcare system deeper into a morass populated by two camps: those who pay and those who don't. The ACA at least moved people towards having everyone's skin in the game and, on a long enough timeline (long enough for the health of the previously uninsured to hit a status quo of relative "good health") the risk-pooling would have stabilized the premiums.
The short-term effects for many people were painful and, since all politics are local, the ACA got a bad rap. It's not a perfect plan, but there are the beginnings of some very helpful reforms built in. It should be tweaked, but a "repeal/replace" course of action only creates more cost and confusion in the short-term and loses sight of the long term goals contained therein.
Now to GH's question: what do I want? I want single-payer for everyone (with an opt-out provision: if you can afford private care/insurance, then go for it). Every single citizen of the United States (and visitors on valid visas/permits) should have free access to health care. If we are the greatest country in the world, we must lead by example and take care of the least of our own. There is more than enough fat in the current health system as well as the rest of the fed budget to accomplish this.
As for this:
pecifically, is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's medical insurance because I made better choices than they did?
It's a garbage argument. Poverty for most isn't a choice.
-
So employers, like our esteemed captains of industry here on the X, are disincentivized from providing employee coverage.
Any employer who is not actively trying to get the best coverage they can for their employees will not be around long enough in the market to make a difference and I can then hire their good personnel.
-
Any employer who is not actively trying to get the best coverage they can for their employees will not be around long enough in the market to make a difference and I can then hire their good personnel.
Certainly one component of it.
-
You're conflating two concepts: health insurance coverage and access to healthcare. Since we were talking about the first in this thread, this quote is exceedingly wrong:
Millions were uninsured and "went without", using our ERs as primary care facilities (which, thanks to EMTALA, they could do). THAT was our healthcare crisis. Rather than having access to routine preventative care, every sniffle and sneeze presented to the ER where they were federally mandated to be seen and stabilized before anyone was allowed to inquire as to their ability to pay.
Not a crisis. Nobody should be guaranteed "preventative care." Get a job.
Leave the government out of the insurance business completely. Before the government got involved and "fixed" things, local doctors took care of local patients. It didn't cost $80 for a Tylenol.
The rest of your post is information I'm familiar with: my first job out of law school was as counsel for the largest ER physicians' group in GA. I helped with their hospital and managed care contracting, but the bulk of my job was supervising a team of 15 collectors and a skip-tracer trying to track down all the real people behind the fake names given at the metro-ATL emergency rooms. On a good month, our collections success rate was around 3%.
THAT was our healthcare crisis, because those uncollected bills were passed along to other, paying patients (more often those patients' insurance) in the form of higher average billing to absorb those costs.
I totally agree with GH that costs are the main problem and the bulk of the blame for the that component should rightfully be laid at the insurer's feet.
Costs are the main problem. They are a problem because the government got involved more than anything. The insurers didn't create the problem, it was foisted on them by an ever-encroaching government.
The ACA was not a panacea, and I don't believe it was intended to be. That said, it got coverage for millions who did not previously have access. Those millions COULD get routine, preventative care and forestall major medical calamities that would wreck not only their household finances permanently, but would, in the aggregate, continue to pull our healthcare system deeper into a morass populated by two camps: those who pay and those who don't. The ACA at least moved people towards having everyone's skin in the game and, on a long enough timeline (long enough for the health of the previously uninsured to hit a status quo of relative "good health") the risk-pooling would have stabilized the premiums.
The short-term effects for many people were painful and, since all politics are local, the ACA got a bad rap. It's not a perfect plan, but there are the beginnings of some very helpful reforms built in. It should be tweaked, but a "repeal/replace" course of action only creates more cost and confusion in the short-term and loses sight of the long term goals contained therein.
Disagree completely. Many of the "millions of insured" already had other coverage but were forced to give it up and get on the dole because a) their employer could no longer afford to provide coverage for them, or b) their employer's rates grew so high as to be unaffordable (which is where many of my employees are at this point) or c) their insurance company fled the state because it couldn't absorb the massive costs jammed down their throats by the Obamacare nonsense.
You're deluding yourself if you think these "millions of insured" are availing themselves of "preventative care." You're fooling yourself if you think the long-term risk pool was ever going to stabilize. You don't understand how it works if you seriously believe "everyone would have skin in the game." When you're forcibly taking more from one to give to another that's not equalizing the field, that's robbery. As an employer and as a taxpayer I am being robbed by this governmental bullshit.
My employees have doubled (and in some cases tripled) insurance rates, higher deductibles, more restrictive coverages and less flexibility. There's no way to spin that as a positive.
Now to GH's question: what do I want? I want single-payer for everyone (with an opt-out provision: if you can afford private care/insurance, then go for it). Every single citizen of the United States (and visitors on valid visas/permits) should have free access to health care. If we are the greatest country in the world, we must lead by example and take care of the least of our own. There is more than enough fat in the current health system as well as the rest of the fed budget to accomplish this.
As for this:
It's a garbage argument. Poverty for most isn't a choice.
Bullshit.
There is no "free" healthcare.
Poverty in this country? Given the opportunities that are out there to take advantage of? Yep. It's a choice.
What you want is raw socialism. It's the exact opposite of what this country should be.
All your "free healthcare" horse manure is going to do is discourage people from going through the grueling, expensive grind required to become doctors because they're going to see their earnings capped and their ability to excel limited. It's going to dilute the quality of care for everyone. It doesn't work, it won't work and continuing down that road will make things worse for all.
Regardless of what you think, nothing is free. Somebody pays.
-
Poverty in this country? Given the opportunities that are out there to take advantage of? Yep. It's a choice.
Ultimately, this is the root of the issue. Fundamentally, you either agree that the playing field is equal for all participants at birth or you do not.
I do not.
-
Ultimately, this is the root of the issue. Fundamentally, you either agree that the playing field is equal for all participants at birth or you do not.
I do not.
Well that's cause the head nurse walked up and said 'leave this one alone' when you were born.
-
Well that's cause the head nurse walked up and said 'leave this one alone' when you were born.
She could tell right away...
-
And while I'm at it...
The "healthcare crisis" is manufactured bullshit anyway.
We are, as a country, overmedicated. You don't NEED to go to the fucking doctor because you've got a cold. Or a stomach virus. Or every time you fart.
I used to fight this in my own home. My ex-wife, now a nurse, would run to the doctor with the kids if they sneezed and come home with antibiotics for what was basically a three-day cold. There's no need for that. Why did she do it? Because we only had to pay $15 for the co-pay (which is now $55, thanks to Obama) and the prescriptions were $10. Then the doctor bills insurance for $150 and the pharmacy bills insurance for another $80. Because they can.
If we'd had to pay the doctor $100 for the visit and another $50 for the prescription because that was the cost? We, the collective we, might not run screaming to the doctor for every twitch and hiccup.
If we HAVE to have insurance, it should be catastrophic only. Anything else should be on you. And not free. And not subsidized.
-
The "healthcare crisis" is manufactured bullshit anyway.
Obviously I disagree wholeheartedly.
We are, as a country, overmedicated.
On this, however, I agree with you.
-
Ultimately, this is the root of the issue. Fundamentally, you either agree that the playing field is equal for all participants at birth or you do not.
I do not.
Serious question, Wes. Why do you think that?
-
Ultimately, this is the root of the issue. Fundamentally, you either agree that the playing field is equal for all participants at birth or you do not.
I do not.
Of course the playing field isn't equal. Some people will have more than others. That's the basis of a free market economy.
Socialism -- the "equal playing field" of which you speak -- doesn't work comrade wes.
You do not have to be poor in this country. There are plenty of opportunities regardless of your starting point. That's all we're promised. Opportunity.
You're looking for level outcomes. That's not going to happen. Nor should it.
-
Serious question, Wes. Why do you think that?
Because it's demonstrably true.
Of course the playing field isn't equal. Some people will have more than others. That's the basis of a free market economy.
...
You're looking for level outcomes. That's not going to happen. Nor should it.
Not level outcomes, just a baseline standard of living that meets the basic needs of the citizenry. The outcome is always up to the participant.
Is asking Bama to abide by the NCAA rules (level playing field) and compete the same as demanding that AU be awarded as many NCs (mythical and non) as Bama?
-
Because it's demonstrably true.
Not level outcomes, just a baseline standard of living that meets the basic needs of the citizenry. The outcome is always up to the participant.
Is asking Bama to abide by the NCAA rules (level playing field) and compete the same as demanding that AU be awarded as many NCs (mythical and non) as Bama?
Oranges and kiwis.
The 'standard baseline' is already substantially better than any country in the world -- including those stupid enough to try to provide 'free' healthcare. Every basic need was being met and moreso. Everyone in this country -- including those here illegally -- had access to health care BEFORE this ridiculous law was passed.
There was no crisis. There was no need for governmental intrusion. It was better left alone.
We can't go back to that now because the rats have gotten a taste of the free cheese and they're turning others who were used to taking care of their own business (paying for doctors and scrips when necessary) into cheese-seeking rats.
It's a crisis fully created by the government. It was intended to give Hillary Clinton a "legacy" (remember, she was the one pushing this whole thing when Billy was in office and she had her name attached to it then). The Islamic Socialist in Chief saw it as a way to create his own legacy and further destroy the country so he glommed onto it.
The whole thing should be repealed, removed and returned to the free market system. It should be left to the states. The federal government should stay completely out of it.
I believe in the free market. Competition keeps costs down and levels of service high. Without it? You've got what you've got now. Runaway costs, reduced service and a minimal level of quality. The entire situation is exponentially worse than it was before Hillary and Obama started meddling.
-
Oranges and kiwis.
The 'standard baseline' is already substantially better than any country in the world -- including those stupid enough to try to provide 'free' healthcare. Every basic need was being met and moreso. Everyone in this country -- including those here illegally -- had access to health care BEFORE this ridiculous law was passed.
There was no crisis. There was no need for governmental intrusion. It was better left alone.
We can't go back to that now because the rats have gotten a taste of the free cheese and they're turning others who were used to taking care of their own business (paying for doctors and scrips when necessary) into cheese-seeking rats.
It's a crisis fully created by the government. It was intended to give Hillary Clinton a "legacy" (remember, she was the one pushing this whole thing when Billy was in office and she had her name attached to it then). The Islamic Socialist in Chief saw it as a way to create his own legacy and further destroy the country so he glommed onto it.
The whole thing should be repealed, removed and returned to the free market system. It should be left to the states. The federal government should stay completely out of it.
I believe in the free market. Competition keeps costs down and levels of service high. Without it? You've got what you've got now. Runaway costs, reduced service and a minimal level of quality. The entire situation is exponentially worse than it was before Hillary and Obama started meddling.
I guess it goes without saying that I disagree with every word of this.
Healthcare delivery doesn't lend itself to free-market concepts. And it shouldn't.
At some point the fiction that any market is "free" or unadulteratedly capitalist has to be sloughed off. We are, as a society, beyond that fable.
-
I guess it goes without saying that I disagree with every word of this.
Healthcare delivery doesn't lend itself to free-market concepts. And it shouldn't.
At some point the fiction that any market is "free" or unadulteratedly capitalist has to be sloughed off. We are, as a society, beyond that fable.
One thing I'll say - it's nice to see the adults on here talking it out for an entire page without interruption.
And what I'm mainly driving at here Wes is should we just keep throwing money at something blindly? Or should we address root causes and think outside the box as compared to the last 3-4 decades' way of doing it? Because it's pretty obvious that hasn't worked well. And it's still not.
It would be nice to be able to walk into a dr office for a routine checkup, something preventative or a cold and not have to even have insurance. Just give them anywhere from 15-100 bucks for the services. Then let catastrophic insurance cover major things like an auto accident or cardio event or cancer. Which is much more affordable since it's more rare for that event to happen than a cold. I read where a guy out in witchita is using a similar type model and it's working great. Forget his name. I'm just afraid your single payer idea is throwing more money at the same problem - just in a different way. Same end different means.
-
One thing I'll say - it's nice to see the adults on here talking it out for an entire page without interruption.
And what I'm mainly driving at here Wes is should we just keep throwing money at something blindly? Or should we address root causes and think outside the box as compared to the last 3-4 decades' way of doing it? Because it's pretty obvious that hasn't worked well. And it's still not.
I don't think it's reasonable to think that you can just pull the plug and change directions. That's why I think the ACA was a good first step. It will be a process (not only administratively, but culturally as well): Examine what works in the ACA and what doesn't. Keep the good, tweak the bad. Rinse, repeat.
Unfortunately, the two camps are currently working towards two opposite goals.
-
I don't think it's reasonable to think that you can just pull the plug and change directions. That's why I think the ACA was a good first step. It will be a process (not only administratively, but culturally as well): Examine what works in the ACA and what doesn't. Keep the good, tweak the bad. Rinse, repeat.
Unfortunately, the two camps are currently working towards two opposite goals.
So is Ryan's plan a good first step at ridding of the bad (mandate, subsidies) and keeping the good (pre existing, age, etc) ?
-
So is Ryan's plan a good first step at ridding of the bad (mandate, subsidies) and keeping the good (pre existing, age, etc) ?
No. It's the exact opposite of a good plan. It's a step backwards.
The Ryan-plan is an all-in push far too early. They tipped their hand and exposed their true end goal: tax cuts for their wealthiest donors. Nearly every singly other aspect of that plan increases the burden on the people that ACA was designed to help.
-
I guess it goes without saying that I disagree with every word of this.
Healthcare delivery doesn't lend itself to free-market concepts. And it shouldn't.
At some point the fiction that any market is "free" or unadulteratedly capitalist has to be sloughed off. We are, as a society, beyond that fable.
I guess it goes without saying that I fundamentally disagree with every facet and nuance of your stance.
Health care lent itself to the free market quite well prior to government intervention. There was no crisis, there was no need for federal intrusion.
If "we as a society are beyond that fable" it's only because of the lies espoused by unabashed socialists such as, well ..... you.
You worked in society's underbelly and wrongly saw an oppressed class of poor folks just trying to make it. I worked in the same pool of cess and saw it for what it was -- a segment of society determined to do as little as possible and live off the work of others. You wrongly saw denied opportunity. I saw opportunity ignored and/or squandered. You wrongly saw a need to redistribute wealth. I saw a need to take advantage of the opportunities provided to make your own way.
Everybody can't be rich. It doesn't work that way. But you can't tell me with a straight face that the opportunity to rise above does not currently exist for everyone legally in this country. I choose not to be responsible for the abysmal life choices made by those who don't.
Don't get me wrong, wes. I have no problem with short-term assistance. I have no qualms about helping people who find themselves in difficult situations. But only on a short-term basis, to give them a chance -- education, re-training, job preparation, etc. -- to find a way out of it.
I unilaterally oppose, however, the life-time entitlements that have become accepted by that particular class. They get "disability" checks. They get WIC. They get food stamps. They get ADC. The kids get "crazy checks." They get subsidized rent.
The government has used Section 8 to turn quality apartments and housing into squalid slums. Then when the formerly nice apartments fall into disrepair and decay, the residents (who are paying little to nothing) agitate and insist on something better because "their house isn't as nice as their neighbors." So the government forces Section 8 on another nice complex. The tenants move, the ones who just destroyed the old complex move in and the pattern repeats itself. I've lived that too. The first apartments I lived in started to accept Section 8 tenants. Six months later, after the second time my apartment and car was broken into, I moved. When that complex accepted its first Section 8 tenant two years later? I moved again. Every time I moved I had to pay substantially higher rent because the Section 8 hordes were artificially inflating the market.
We've got an entire subclass of people now who are in the second, third and fourth generation of living on the dole. Ethel Lee is a prime example. She filed for disability because she was "down in her back" when she was 18 years old. She had "bad knees." She pumped out seven kids by multiple different men. All of them lived in public housing and drew government checks. None of them worked. I personally heard her tell her 16 year old daughter -- who already had one child -- that she needed to have another one because they needed the additional check for it. None of her kids ever even thought about working. Well, one worked at Wendy's for a short time and was ridiculed by the rest of the family. Then she got pregnant, quit the job and moved into Rosedale Courts on her own and one the dole.
I paid for that. You paid for that.
And now you want me to pay more? You think I should give Ethel Lee and her ilk a fucking "baseline?"
You honestly believe that the addition of another lifetime entitlement is the answer?
That's only palatable to me if there are consequences for her actions. She made the choices. Her kids made their choices. Her children went to the same schools mine would have, would have had the same teachers, would have had the same classes. They would have better chances to get financial aid for college than my kids, a lowered standard to be accepted, more help. I can easily make the case that Ethel Lee's children actually have BETTER opportunity than my kids do. So I should pay for their failures when they elect NOT to or are not motivated or encouraged to take advantage of them?
You are more wrong about this than you could ever imagine.
-
No. It's the exact opposite of a good plan. It's a step backwards.
The Ryan-plan is an all-in push far too early. They tipped their hand and exposed their true end goal: tax cuts for their wealthiest donors. Nearly every singly other aspect of that plan increases the burden on the people that ACA was designed to help.
ACA put a burden on more than rich people like snags though. It doesn't set too well with me when I get the max I can taken out of my paycheck every month on taxes, pay more for my premiums the last 2 years (mostly because of this legislation let's be honest) - and still owe the IRS an amount with a comma in it every April. While someone else pays very little tax and very little healthcare premium at the expense of someone else. That just doesn't sit right. And I know it's more than just rich people. And more than just me. The middle class gets the shaft every single time on these things.
-
I don't think it's reasonable to think that you can just pull the plug and change directions. That's why I think the ACA was a good first step. It will be a process (not only administratively, but culturally as well): Examine what works in the ACA and what doesn't. Keep the good, tweak the bad. Rinse, repeat.
Unfortunately, the two camps are currently working towards two opposite goals.
W.R.O.N.G.
It's a step that: a) wasn't necessary, b) should never have been taken and c) should be abandoned in its entirety.
it was a horrible idea, an absolute disaster.
-
I guess it goes without saying that I fundamentally disagree with every facet and nuance of your stance.
Health care lent itself to the free market quite well prior to government intervention. There was no crisis, there was no need for federal intrusion.
If "we as a society are beyond that fable" it's only because of the lies espoused by unabashed socialists such as, well ..... you.
You worked in society's underbelly and wrongly saw an oppressed class of poor folks just trying to make it. I worked in the same pool of cess and saw it for what it was -- a segment of society determined to do as little as possible and live off the work of others. You wrongly saw denied opportunity. I saw opportunity ignored and/or squandered. You wrongly saw a need to redistribute wealth. I saw a need to take advantage of the opportunities provided to make your own way.
Everybody can't be rich. It doesn't work that way. But you can't tell me with a straight face that the opportunity to rise above does not currently exist for everyone legally in this country. I choose not to be responsible for the abysmal life choices made by those who don't.
Don't get me wrong, wes. I have no problem with short-term assistance. I have no qualms about helping people who find themselves in difficult situations. But only on a short-term basis, to give them a chance -- education, re-training, job preparation, etc. -- to find a way out of it.
I unilaterally oppose, however, the life-time entitlements that have become accepted by that particular class. They get "disability" checks. They get WIC. They get food stamps. They get ADC. The kids get "crazy checks." They get subsidized rent.
The government has used Section 8 to turn quality apartments and housing into squalid slums. Then when the formerly nice apartments fall into disrepair and decay, the residents (who are paying little to nothing) agitate and insist on something better because "their house isn't as nice as their neighbors." So the government forces Section 8 on another nice complex. The tenants move, the ones who just destroyed the old complex move in and the pattern repeats itself. I've lived that too. The first apartments I lived in started to accept Section 8 tenants. Six months later, after the second time my apartment and car was broken into, I moved. When that complex accepted its first Section 8 tenant two years later? I moved again. Every time I moved I had to pay substantially higher rent because the Section 8 hordes were artificially inflating the market.
We've got an entire subclass of people now who are in the second, third and fourth generation of living on the dole. Ethel Lee is a prime example. She filed for disability because she was "down in her back" when she was 18 years old. She had "bad knees." She pumped out seven kids by multiple different men. All of them lived in public housing and drew government checks. None of them worked. I personally heard her tell her 16 year old daughter -- who already had one child -- that she needed to have another one because they needed the additional check for it. None of her kids ever even thought about working. Well, one worked at Wendy's for a short time and was ridiculed by the rest of the family. Then she got pregnant, quit the job and moved into Rosedale Courts on her own and one the dole.
I paid for that. You paid for that.
And now you want me to pay more? You think I should give Ethel Lee and her ilk a fucking "baseline?" That's only palatable to me if there are consequences for her actions. She made the choices. Her kids made their choices. Her children went to the same schools mine would have, would have had the same teachers, would have had the same classes. They would have better chances to get financial aid for college than my kids, a lowered standard to be accepted, more help. I can easily make the case that Ethel Lee's children actually have BETTER opportunity than my kids do. So I should pay for their failures when they elect NOT to or are not motivated or encouraged to take advantage of them?
You are more wrong about this than you could ever imagine.
So, let's continue to punish the children born into the life crafted by "poor choices?" We have to invest in a healthier, better educated population. That means ALL of our population, not those with generations of advantage.
We have to give the kids an opportunity to get out by leveling the field. It is undisputed that socioeconomic status determines in large part the arc of a child's life. The kid didn't choose that circumstance, so why are we continuing to force them back into it?
The short term cost (this is also responsive to your post GH) is going to be "unfair" for those at the top of the earnings brackets, but this investment will yield a deeper workforce from which to draw that will ultimately make us a better and stronger America.
-
W.R.O.N.G.
It's a step that: a) wasn't necessary, b) should never have been taken and c) should be abandoned in its entirety.
it was a horrible idea, an absolute disaster.
Obviously you disagree with my stated ultimate goal.
-
Ultimately, this is the root of the issue. Fundamentally, you either agree that the playing field is equal for all participants at birth or you do not.
I do not.
Maybe semantics, but this is where we disagree for the most part. Equality of opportunity should be, and are constitutionally, guaranteed. Not equality of outcome. And they shouldn't be conflated.
-
Maybe semantics, but this is where we disagree for the most part. Equality of opportunity should be, and are constitutionally, guaranteed. Not equality of outcome. And they shouldn't be conflated.
I agree.
Not level outcomes, just a baseline standard of living that meets the basic needs of the citizenry. The outcome is always up to the participant.
Is asking Bama to abide by the NCAA rules (level playing field) and compete the same as demanding that AU be awarded as many NCs (mythical and non) as Bama?
-
ACA put a burden on more than rich people like snags though. It doesn't set too well with me when I get the max I can taken out of my paycheck every month on taxes, pay more for my premiums the last 2 years (mostly because of this legislation let's be honest) - and still owe the IRS an amount with a comma in it every April. While someone else pays very little tax and very little healthcare premium at the expense of someone else. That just doesn't sit right. And I know it's more than just rich people. And more than just me. The middle class gets the shaft every single time on these things.
You're SO right. I'm not rich. I was never going to get there under Obama's socialist plans.
My insurance now costs me something like $1500 a month. Eight years ago it was under $500. How is that right?
My taxes? Oh, madon.... I'm not going to get into how much I pay specifically but in the last eight years combined there's more than one comma in there. I pay roughly 4x what I bring home.
Insurance and taxes are now my biggest expense. Surpassing what I pay my employees.
It wasn't like that pre-Obama and pre- this spectacularly shitty entitlement program.
It has to stop.
-
I agree.
:thumsup:
I posted as soon as I read that and before finishing the thread. But this is relevant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRKI6u6UkAAkLVT.jpg)
-
You're SO right. I'm not rich. I was never going to get there under Obama's socialist plans.
My insurance now costs me something like $1500 a month. Eight years ago it was under $500. How is that right?
My taxes? Oh, madon.... I'm not going to get into how much I pay specifically but in the last eight years combined there's more than one comma in there. I pay roughly 4x what I bring home.
Insurance and taxes are now my biggest expense. Surpassing what I pay my employees.
It wasn't like that pre-Obama and pre- this spectacularly shitty entitlement program.
It has to stop.
Is there an amount that you would be ok paying? An amount, that if was levied upon the "makers" and given to the "takers" that would provide them basic healthcare?
-
So, let's continue to punish the children born into the life crafted by "poor choices?" We have to invest in a healthier, better educated population. That means ALL of our population, not those with generations of advantage.
So now we're getting to the root of the issue. Wes has white guilt. Period.
Your entire point of view is built on that fallacy.
Among my many jobs, wes, I taught in a very poor school for years. I taught history. And I was a damn good teacher. Almost everybody there was good. Everybody in that place was working their ass off for scant wages, working because we felt like we could make a difference.
So I'm there making $28,000 a year because I loved it. There were many days I had to bring sandwiches from home because I couldn't afford to buy the school lunch and still get gas for my truck.
And I'm watching kids wearing $150 shoes, $90 Ralph Lauren jeans, jewelry... they're eating free lunches.
I can look back at the kids I taught. There were some, one in particular I remember, who had absolutely nothing. A mom who spent her entire paycheck at the casino and a dad who was in jail for drugs. That kid? He owns a chain of retail stores now. He started it himself. There were others who had everything and did nothing with their lives.
You can't legislate that. You can't "even" that playing field.
We have to give the kids an opportunity to get out by leveling the field. It is undisputed that socioeconomic status determines in large part the arc of a child's life. The kid didn't choose that circumstance, so why are we continuing to force them back into it?
The short term cost (this is also responsive to your post GH) is going to be "unfair" for those at the top of the earnings brackets, but this investment will yield a deeper workforce from which to draw that will ultimately make us a better and stronger America.
No offense, but you're a raving lunatic if you think that giving even more is going to achieve that level playing field.
Every kid I taught had the same opportunity to learn, to improve their status, to make it out.
Nobody is "forcing" them into anything.
The opportunity is there. The playing field is more level than you understand. You're utterly and completely wrong about this.
It's a matter of personal choice. Oh, the path may be easier for somebody born in Newport Rhode Island whose dad has a yacht than it is for somebody born in Newbern Mississippi whose mom gets her monthly checks and watches The Chew everyday on TV. But the path is there for both should they choose to travel it.
You take that kid from Newbern? The system will break itself in half today trying to make sure he succeeds. That kid -- if he's willing to try -- will have just as much opportunity if not more than the Newport kid.
You're just wrong, wes. Fundamentally wrong. The answer is accountability, not more entitlement.
-
Is there an amount that you would be ok paying? An amount, that if was levied upon the "makers" and given to the "takers" that would provide them basic healthcare?
No.
Because I disagree with that concept on a fundamental level.
I have no desire to fund "takers."
I'd be more inclined to support anything that actually promotes personal accountability and ties the ability to receive with the desire to improve. But the current state of entitlement, where people think they are owed something just by virtue that they breathe? Nope.
-
I guess it goes without saying that I disagree with every word of this.
Healthcare delivery doesn't lend itself to free-market concepts. And it shouldn't.
At some point the fiction that any market is "free" or unadulteratedly capitalist has to be sloughed off. We are, as a society, beyond that fable.
So, I'll try again. I disagree with this as well. I'm not beyond it. In fact, it's really the only thing (as central to the debate as it is) that I disagree with you on in regards to the ACA.
I think "build a better mousetrap" is undeniable economic 101 truth and fact. As is "you pay for what you get".
I understand that you ideally want an opt out option for private insurance for people who can afford it, but I think that ignores bigger problems. First, the status quo is that 99% of people (that's Chizad math, didn't look up an actual stat) of people get quality health care plans from their employers. You offer a subpar government plan to everyone who doesn't want to buy their own "Cadillac" plan, and that goes away. Your choice is truly to take VA quality healthcare plan or spend a fortune to have your own plan, not subsidized by your employers. Secondly, I think common sense absolutely bares out that when doctors start getting paid average-Joe wages, you are no longer going to get the best and the brightest entering the field of medicine. Can't imagine how you would expect that to be the case.
-
I guess it goes without saying that I fundamentally disagree with every facet and nuance of your stance.
Health care lent itself to the free market quite well prior to government intervention. There was no crisis, there was no need for federal intrusion.
If "we as a society are beyond that fable" it's only because of the lies espoused by unabashed socialists such as, well ..... you.
You worked in society's underbelly and wrongly saw an oppressed class of poor folks just trying to make it. I worked in the same pool of cess and saw it for what it was -- a segment of society determined to do as little as possible and live off the work of others. You wrongly saw denied opportunity. I saw opportunity ignored and/or squandered. You wrongly saw a need to redistribute wealth. I saw a need to take advantage of the opportunities provided to make your own way.
Everybody can't be rich. It doesn't work that way. But you can't tell me with a straight face that the opportunity to rise above does not currently exist for everyone legally in this country. I choose not to be responsible for the abysmal life choices made by those who don't.
Don't get me wrong, wes. I have no problem with short-term assistance. I have no qualms about helping people who find themselves in difficult situations. But only on a short-term basis, to give them a chance -- education, re-training, job preparation, etc. -- to find a way out of it.
I unilaterally oppose, however, the life-time entitlements that have become accepted by that particular class. They get "disability" checks. They get WIC. They get food stamps. They get ADC. The kids get "crazy checks." They get subsidized rent.
The government has used Section 8 to turn quality apartments and housing into squalid slums. Then when the formerly nice apartments fall into disrepair and decay, the residents (who are paying little to nothing) agitate and insist on something better because "their house isn't as nice as their neighbors." So the government forces Section 8 on another nice complex. The tenants move, the ones who just destroyed the old complex move in and the pattern repeats itself. I've lived that too. The first apartments I lived in started to accept Section 8 tenants. Six months later, after the second time my apartment and car was broken into, I moved. When that complex accepted its first Section 8 tenant two years later? I moved again. Every time I moved I had to pay substantially higher rent because the Section 8 hordes were artificially inflating the market.
We've got an entire subclass of people now who are in the second, third and fourth generation of living on the dole. Ethel Lee is a prime example. She filed for disability because she was "down in her back" when she was 18 years old. She had "bad knees." She pumped out seven kids by multiple different men. All of them lived in public housing and drew government checks. None of them worked. I personally heard her tell her 16 year old daughter -- who already had one child -- that she needed to have another one because they needed the additional check for it. None of her kids ever even thought about working. Well, one worked at Wendy's for a short time and was ridiculed by the rest of the family. Then she got pregnant, quit the job and moved into Rosedale Courts on her own and one the dole.
I paid for that. You paid for that.
And now you want me to pay more? You think I should give Ethel Lee and her ilk a fucking "baseline?"
You honestly believe that the addition of another lifetime entitlement is the answer?
That's only palatable to me if there are consequences for her actions. She made the choices. Her kids made their choices. Her children went to the same schools mine would have, would have had the same teachers, would have had the same classes. They would have better chances to get financial aid for college than my kids, a lowered standard to be accepted, more help. I can easily make the case that Ethel Lee's children actually have BETTER opportunity than my kids do. So I should pay for their failures when they elect NOT to or are not motivated or encouraged to take advantage of them?
You are more wrong about this than you could ever imagine.
Thank you for putting this in a way even socialists can understand.
Now we will get, "but what about the children" argument.
You did leave out the ton of money these "poor children" get to attend college. IF, they could just find it in themselves to actually graduate from high school. But I guess that is not their fault either.
While my children work or join the military to be able to attend college, they get more money than they ever had thrown at them. BUT yet, they are "stuck in poverty"!
-
So, I'll try again. I disagree with this as well. I'm not beyond it. In fact, it's really the only thing (as central to the debate as it is) that I disagree with you on in regards to the ACA.
I think "build a better mousetrap" is undeniable economic 101 truth and fact. As is "you pay for what you get".
I understand that you ideally want an opt out option for private insurance for people who can afford it, but I think that ignores bigger problems. First, the status quo is that 99% of people (that's Chizad math, didn't look up an actual stat) of people get quality health care plans from their employers. You offer a subpar government plan to everyone who doesn't want to buy their own "Cadillac" plan, and that goes away. Your choice is truly to take VA quality healthcare plan or spend a fortune to have your own plan, not subsidized by your employers. Secondly, I think common sense absolutely bares out that when doctors start getting paid average-Joe wages, you are no longer going to get the best and the brightest entering the field of medicine. Can't imagine how you would expect that to be the case.
Oh no. I agree with you.
I would like to add that the 99% USED to get quality healthcare from their employers. What's happened to so many like me since this ridiculous legislation was passed is that we no longer have the ability to provide it.
Prior to this ACA I paid for full coverage for all employees and their families. The plan had reasonable deductibles, low copays and provided inexpensive prescriptions. Since? I can't pay for it all. They have to shoulder too much of the burden. The deductible has quadrupled in some cases. The copay more than doubled. Procedures that were once covered now cost. $400 for an MRI. Many treatments -- even preventative ones -- are no longer included.
It is an abomination. For whom is it actually affordable?
-
It is an abomination. For whom is it actually affordable?
It is now affordable for all of those people getting subsidies. While the people who previously were barely able to afford it, now have no insurance.
So essentially, you stole from the working middle class to give to the poor.
-
Wes (and to a lesser extent Chizad) -
We are worlds apart ideologically. On this topic and in this arena we will never agree. I am fairly certain we are so far apart in viewpoint that common ground is likely impossible. I firmly believe that your position and remedy to resolve a "crisis" I am convinced does not exist are not only fundamentally wrong but also detrimental to the survival of this country.
I do respect your opinion and am sadly aware that there are others who share it. Doesn't change the fact that I know in my head and my heart that you are well-meaning but undeniably wrong.
I say that to say this. You aren't going to change my mind. As long as I'm alive I'm going to do all I can to oppose this point of view. I also realize you are equally entrenched.
My real hope is that as we (collectively) pull in opposite directions the end result is a compromise which satisfies neither of us fully but lands somewhere in the middle -- much closer to my side of course.
We can continue to debate this if you wish. But we should do so knowing the ground rules. I'm not going to change my mind. Don't expect me to.
-
It is now affordable for all of those people getting subsidies. While the people who previously were barely able to afford it, now have no insurance.
So essentially, you stole from the working middle class to give to the poor.
Pretty much what I was saying a few posts up. It was a xfer of wealth at the end of the day. Disguised as a social program. I have major issues with that.
-
Wes (and to a lesser extent Chizad) -
We are worlds apart ideologically. On this topic and in this arena we will never agree. I am fairly certain we are so far apart in viewpoint that common ground is likely impossible. I firmly believe that your position and remedy to resolve a "crisis" I am convinced does not exist are not only fundamentally wrong but also detrimental to the survival of this country.
I do respect your opinion and am sadly aware that there are others who share it. Doesn't change the fact that I know in my head and my heart that you are well-meaning but undeniably wrong.
I say that to say this. You aren't going to change my mind. As long as I'm alive I'm going to do all I can to oppose this point of view. I also realize you are equally entrenched.
My real hope is that as we (collectively) pull in opposite directions the end result is a compromise which satisfies neither of us fully but lands somewhere in the middle -- much closer to my side of course.
We can continue to debate this if you wish. But we should do so knowing the ground rules. I'm not going to change my mind. Don't expect me to.
You're right. At the end of the day I don't think anyone is gonna change anyone's mind outside of a miracle happening. We all come from different spots in life and have reasons for why we think what we do. I get that. But you'd be surprised at what middle ground you can hit when cooler heads prevail.
-
I understand that you ideally want an opt out option for private insurance for people who can afford it, but I think that ignores bigger problems. First, the status quo is that 99% of people (that's Chizad math, didn't look up an actual stat) of people get quality health care plans from their employers. You offer a subpar government plan to everyone who doesn't want to buy their own "Cadillac" plan, and that goes away. Your choice is truly to take VA quality healthcare plan or spend a fortune to have your own plan, not subsidized by your employers. Secondly, I think common sense absolutely bares out that when doctors start getting paid average-Joe wages, you are no longer going to get the best and the brightest entering the field of medicine. Can't imagine how you would expect that to be the case.
That. ^^
Right there in bold. Excellent point.
-
Wes (and to a lesser extent Chizad) -
We are worlds apart ideologically. On this topic and in this arena we will never agree. I am fairly certain we are so far apart in viewpoint that common ground is likely impossible. I firmly believe that your position and remedy to resolve a "crisis" I am convinced does not exist are not only fundamentally wrong but also detrimental to the survival of this country.
I do respect your opinion and am sadly aware that there are others who share it. Doesn't change the fact that I know in my head and my heart that you are well-meaning but undeniably wrong.
I say that to say this. You aren't going to change my mind. As long as I'm alive I'm going to do all I can to oppose this point of view. I also realize you are equally entrenched.
My real hope is that as we (collectively) pull in opposite directions the end result is a compromise which satisfies neither of us fully but lands somewhere in the middle -- much closer to my side of course.
We can continue to debate this if you wish. But we should do so knowing the ground rules. I'm not going to change my mind. Don't expect me to.
I disagree that we should agree to disagree.
In all seriousness, while some of what you say here is true, I don't think it's a virtue to be hardheaded about political topics like this. I absolutely understand that certain ideological principles are ingrained at this point in your life. You're not still trying to figure out how you generally feel about entitlements and how much government should play a role in our daily lives.
But to apply it broadly across the board with zero thoughtful consideration to where you stand on something where maybe conflicting ideological principles may fall on an issue, especially "new" topics like the AHA and its replacement, is not good, IMO. ESPECIALLY if you're taking the extra lazy route IMO and saying "What does the guy with an R after his name think? Ok, that's what I think too" or vice-versa. I'm saying you may have beliefs in limited government AND moral/religious beliefs where you think the government should step in. There are topics where those two conflicting principles may be at odds. If you're being any degree of intellectually honest, you've got to make those determinations ad-hoc with different topics as they arise.
I think both Wes and Kaos have both made valid arguments that appear to conflict with principles within myself. Discussions like this, when they're able to stay on course as this one has, are helpful to me at least, in figuring out exactly where I do land on a topic like this because I don't don't just accept canned stances from party lines on one side of the aisle or the other.
-
I disagree that we should agree to disagree.
In all seriousness, while some of what you say here is true, I don't think it's a virtue to be hardheaded about political topics like this. I absolutely understand that certain ideological principles are ingrained at this point in your life. You're not still trying to figure out how you generally feel about entitlements and how much government should play a role in our daily lives.
But to apply it broadly across the board with zero thoughtful consideration to where you stand on something where maybe conflicting ideological principles may fall on an issue, especially "new" topics like the AHA and its replacement, is not good, IMO. ESPECIALLY if you're taking the extra lazy route IMO and saying "What does the guy with an R after his name think? Ok, that's what I think too" or vice-versa. I'm saying you may have believes in limited government AND moral/religious beliefs where you think the government should step in. There are topics where those two conflicting principles may be at odds. If you're being any degree of intellectually honest, you've got to make those determinations ad-hoc with different topics as they arise.
I think both Wes and Kaos have both made valid arguments that appear to conflict with principles within myself. Discussions like this, when they're able to stay on course as this one has, are helpful to me at least, in figuring out exactly where I do land on a topic like this because I don't don't just accept canned stances from party lines on one side of the aisle or the other.
If you don't know me by now..... you will never ...
Anyhoo..
I don't care what party a person represents. In my young and stupid days I bought into Carter. I was okay with Bill until he lost hand and had to goosestep to Hillary's orders in exchange for her saving his political skin.
I dont and didn't oppose Obama because he was a dem. I opposed him because I felt he was a big zero with foolish ideas and a good speechwriter. I do find myself typically more aligned with the Republican Party. But it's not a given.
I opposed the ACA not because it was a dem plan but because it represnted further government intrusion to solve a crisis I don't believe exists. I continue to oppose it because I see the real world impact.
It's not a party thing. I'm open to debate on whatever. I appreciate being challenged.
-
If you don't know me by now..... you will never ...
Anyhoo..
I don't care what party a person represents. In my young and stupid days I bought into Carter. I was okay with Bill until he lost hand and had to goosestep to Hillary's orders in exchange for her saving his political skin.
I dont and didn't oppose Obama because he was a dem. I opposed him because I felt he was a big zero with foolish ideas and a good speechwriter. I do find myself typically more aligned with the Republican Party. But it's not a given.
I opposed the ACA not because it was a dem plan but because it represnted further government intrusion to solve a crisis I don't believe exists. I continue to oppose it because I see the real world impact.
It's not a party thing. I'm open to debate on whatever. I appreciate being challenged.
It's good to see the retards feeling like an integral part of society. You embrace that, short bus.
-
It's good to see the retards feeling like an integral part of society. You embrace that, short bus.
And in comes snags with a right hook.
Because it certainly wasn't the balls.
-
I opposed the ACA not because it was a dem plan but because it represnted further government intrusion to solve a crisis I don't believe exists.
This sentence exemplifies why I myself am of two minds on this and why I fall somewhere between you and Wes.
I do see it as government intrusion and I do believe a crisis exists.
-
This sentence exemplifies why I myself am of two minds on this and why I fall somewhere between you and Wes.
I do see it as government intrusion and I do believe a crisis exists.
I think the causes and remedies are more what's debated. And I'm not sure Wes likes some of my cause analysis. We've discussed this before. But SOME of it does involve tort reform. It's not THE problem. But it has been a problem in the past as far as cost of doing business for doctors.
-
American Nurses Association, American Hospital Association, & the American Medical Association have all come out against the Republican health care plan.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/323060-nurses-join-doctors-hospitals-in-ripping-gop-health-plan
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/322889-largest-doctors-group-opposes-gop-obamacare-bill
-
American Nurses Association, American Hospital Association, & the American Medical Association have all come out against the Republican health care plan.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/323060-nurses-join-doctors-hospitals-in-ripping-gop-health-plan
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/322889-largest-doctors-group-opposes-gop-obamacare-bill
Fuck them.
Repeal the entire piece of shit and don't replace it with anything. That's fine with me.
-
I'm catching up. Without watching any slanted news on it (either way) or actually looking at the bill, we should all assume that the people who are actually in the healthcare field are not going to ever be ok with anything that doesn't line their pockets to the fullest. I can't blame them, they spend a shit ton of time and money in school. I'd want to be paid handsomely as well. But they have a vested interest in healthcare not being labeled as "affordable" in any sense of the word.
So yes, fuck their opinions.
-
I'm catching up. Without watching any slanted news on it (either way) or actually looking at the bill, we should all assume that the people who are actually in the healthcare field are not going to ever be ok with anything that doesn't line their pockets to the fullest. I can't blame them, they spend a shit ton of time and money in school. I'd want to be paid handsomely as well. But they have a vested interest in healthcare not being labeled as "affordable" in any sense of the word.
So yes, fuck their opinions.
Agreed.
And there really needs to be some kind of regulation between Big Pharma sales and medical practice. The fact that people are getting rich off of people being sick is absolutely twisted. No way I trust anyone involved.
-
So now we're getting to the root of the issue. Wes has white guilt. Period.
Point of order: I never mentioned race. Poverty is an equal opportunity destroyer of lives. It is not a choice. No one chooses to begin there.
The rest of your post is anecdotal nothing.
I'm not suggesting that health care is the silver bullet to correct society's ills, but it is a start. There needs to be holistic overhaul of much of the assistance provided, but basic health care ought to be a fundamental right in the world's greatest country.
-
I'm not going to change my mind. Don't expect me to.
Christ on a cracker, no one who has spent any amount of time on this board expects that.
On the "repeal and replace" note, remember when I said it was not practical and unreasonable to slam the brakes and throw ACA out the window? New estimates are in at $600Billion to repeal.
-
Point of order: I never mentioned race. Poverty is an equal opportunity destroyer of lives. It is not a choice. No one chooses to begin there.
The rest of your post is anecdotal nothing.
I'm not suggesting that health care is the silver bullet to correct society's ills, but it is a start. There needs to be holistic overhaul of much of the assistance provided, but basic health care ought to be a fundamental right in the world's greatest country.
Access to it is already.
Providing it and having it paid for? Not sure I agree with that. Just like anything else, you have a right to buy it. But you don't have a right to have it provided to you at someone else's expense. I know it's apples and oranges because healthcare is a necessity, but the same with a house or car. I have the right to have access to buy a house. Doesn't mean I have a financial path to do it. I'd buy what I could.
-
Christ on a cracker, no one who has spent any amount of time on this board expects that.
On the "repeal and replace" note, remember when I said it was not practical and unreasonable to slam the brakes and throw ACA out the window? New estimates are in at $600Billion to repeal.
Shortfall from the mandate going away has to be some of that - between people not buying it and not paying the fine for not doing so. If anything that part of the shortfall is showing that is was a quasi Ponzi scheme to start. Even Rahm Emmanuels brother has said as much. He was the author of it.
-
There needs to be holistic overhaul of much of the assistance provided, but basic health care ought to be a fundamental right in the world's greatest country.
Totally agree about needing an overhaul, but throwing even more money at the problems won't address the root cause.
-
Totally agree about needing an overhaul, but throwing even more money at the problems won't address the root cause.
Main point I've been driving at here. When do you stop increasing the money we throw at these issues?
-
Point of order: I never mentioned race. Poverty is an equal opportunity destroyer of lives. It is not a choice. No one chooses to begin there.
The rest of your post is anecdotal nothing.
basic health care ought to be a fundamental right in the world's greatest country.
Point of odor: You didn't have to. It was indelibly etched into your post. You suffer from white privilege syndrome. You feel guilty because you have more than others. It's a disease.
Anecdotal nothing? That's how you respond to a reality you'd prefer not to face?
Fundamental rights:
Life. Liberty. Pursuit of happiness.
That's it. Free Afrin isn't on the list, nor should it be.
-
Christ on a cracker, no one who has spent any amount of time on this board expects that.
I only said that because there are those who tire of the back and forth and perhaps think we should find common ground.
I'm completely in agreement with Chizad. We should not agree. We shouldn't agree to disagree. We should keep fighting for what we believe in.
I'm going to do that by supporting candidates who are as closely aligned to what I believe as I can. I'm going to support them financially when possible and encourage others to do so. In fact, I got my invitation to President Trump's inauguration yesterday. So I'll be going..... hey.... wait.... Thanks USPS. Awesome job with the timely mail. I'm glad the same government that runs your outfit wants to manage healthcare.
I assume you'll do the same.
I also feel compelled to take advantage of venues like this to exchange ideas (and have the freedom to do so in vulgar ways, fuckhole) and get perspective from the other side. I'm probably not going to change my mind, you're probably not BUT sometimes we may make points that help others see a different view. I'm not even saying it's impossible to change my mind. I let you guys (and his performance) chill me out on Chizik for a while, until I was ultimately proven right in the end.
Where I am with this? If you want to pay for other people's healthcare? Sure. Go ahead. Let the churches do it if they want. I don't want to.
If you want to open the borders? Well, they all have to come live at your house. Yours, George Clooney's, Seth Meyer's, Trevor Noah's, Jon Stewart's etc. You pay for them and you be responsible for what they do. I'd rather not.
I don't want to pay for anybody else's housing, food, clothes or any of that unless I'm not forced to. Then I might.
I'll pay taxes for roads, for education, for police, for firefighters, for people to keep the streets and sidewalks clean.
That to me should be the sole function of government. Keep me safe, make sure I can get where I'm going and stay the fucking hell out of everything else entirely.
-
I'm catching up. Without watching any slanted news on it (either way) or actually looking at the bill, we should all assume that the people who are actually in the healthcare field are not going to ever be ok with anything that doesn't line their pockets to the fullest. I can't blame them, they spend a shit ton of time and money in school. I'd want to be paid handsomely as well. But they have a vested interest in healthcare not being labeled as "affordable" in any sense of the word.
So yes, fuck their opinions.
Agreed.
And there really needs to be some kind of regulation between Big Pharma sales and medical practice. The fact that people are getting rich off of people being sick is absolutely twisted. No way I trust anyone involved.
Was this your opinion on Obamacare or nah?
What about the Trump plan is "sticking it to big pharma and the medical profession" that Obamacare was not? I agree there need to be reforms and regulations put in place to reign in pharmaceutical companies (again, counter to my default position on government interference). Less so for "the medical profession" for reasons I already stated.
But it seemed like my stance on not completely fucking over doctors was one conservatives held to protest Obamacare. And it's one Kaos had yesterday until it no longer served him.
-
I only said that because there are those who tire of the back and forth and perhaps think we should find common ground.
I'm completely in agreement with Chizad. We should not agree. We shouldn't agree to disagree. We should keep fighting for what we believe in.
I'm going to do that by supporting candidates who are as closely aligned to what I believe as I can. I'm going to support them financially when possible and encourage others to do so. In fact, I got my invitation to President Trump's inauguration yesterday. So I'll be going..... hey.... wait.... Thanks USPS. Awesome job with the timely mail. I'm glad the same government that runs your outfit wants to manage healthcare.
I assume you'll do the same.
I also feel compelled to take advantage of venues like this to exchange ideas (and have the freedom to do so in vulgar ways, fuckhole) and get perspective from the other side. I'm probably not going to change my mind, you're probably not BUT sometimes we may make points that help others see a different view. I'm not even saying it's impossible to change my mind. I let you guys (and his performance) chill me out on Chizik for a while, until I was ultimately proven right in the end.
Where I am with this? If you want to pay for other people's healthcare? Sure. Go ahead. Let the churches do it if they want. I don't want to.
If you want to open the borders? Well, they all have to come live at your house. Yours, George Clooney's, Seth Meyer's, Trevor Noah's, Jon Stewart's etc. You pay for them and you be responsible for what they do. I'd rather not.
I don't want to pay for anybody else's housing, food, clothes or any of that unless I'm not forced to. Then I might.
I'll pay taxes for roads, for education, for police, for firefighters, for people to keep the streets and sidewalks clean.
That to me should be the sole function of government. Keep me safe, make sure I can get where I'm going and stay the fucking hell out of everything else entirely.
When I say agree to disagree I'm meaning in the context of you and Wes being on totally different planets here and acknowledging that it's probably not going to change. But that doesn't mean you both won't quit pulling for your side nor should you.
-
Totally agree about needing an overhaul, but throwing even more money at the problems won't address the root cause.
Main point I've been driving at here. When do you stop increasing the money we throw at these issues?
Y'all seemed to have missed the bold below.
On the "repeal and replace" note, remember when I said it was not practical and unreasonable to slam the brakes and throw ACA out the window? New estimates are in at $600Billion to repeal.
Y'all want to throw good money after bad just to spite Obama, and in practicality, lots and lots of sick people who were unable to get coverage before it.
I'm "conservative" in the sense that I think gradual, careful change is always preferred to drastic radical change. I was reluctant to be in favor of Obamacare because of this. Now that it's the law of the land, I'm also opposed to scrapping it outright for exactly the same reason. Like it or not, Obamacare is now in place. The wheels are in motion. Backtracking now would cause all kinds of disruption and cost all kinds of money. Just so you can "stick it to" people in need. Not a good look.
-
But it seemed like my stance on not completely fucking over doctors was one conservatives held to protest Obamacare. And it's one Kaos had yesterday until it no longer served him.
Not sure how you got this.
I think doctors should make as much as they can. I don't think they should make it by bilking medicare and insurance companies by inflating the costs of what they do.
Goes back to the $80 Tylenol. That's a real thing. When my first child was being born I had a horrific headache. Asked the nurse if she could get me something. She said she could get me a couple of Tylenol, but they'd cost me $80 each so I'd be better off going to the pharmacy and getting some. Well, shit, there's a baby coming, so hahaha, $80... yeah, right. Just get them. Going over the itemized bill later? $158.00 for Tylenol. Why? Because insurance would pay it.
I agree with GH. If there's a crisis it's in the costs. I've watched the medicine my dad has to take go from $24 for a month's supply to more than $400. The costs get more and more ridiculous. Something has to be done to bring those in line. Giving away "free" healthcare isn't the answer.
It disgusts me that morons like Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and that piece of shit Islamobama forced this garbage on us and now we can't just get rid of it and tackle the real problems. Any more money we throw at this mess is money shoved up a pig's ass. It's not going to make it better, it's only going to make it worse. This is one of those cases where we need to just rip the bandaid off and take the short-term pain.
-
Y'all seemed to have missed the bold below.
Y'all want to throw good money after bad just to spite Obama, and in practicality, lots and lots of sick people who were unable to get coverage before it.
I'm "conservative" in the sense that I think gradual, careful change is always preferred to drastic radical change. I was reluctant to be in favor of Obamacare because of this. Now that it's the law of the land, I'm also opposed to scrapping it outright for exactly the same reason. Like it or not, Obamacare is now in place. The wheels are in motion. Backtracking now would cause all kinds of disruption and cost all kinds of money. Just so you can "stick it to" people in need. Not a good look.
1) Disagree that there were hordes of sick people unable to get care. That's an outright lie. Not on your part, I don't blame you. It's the lie you were fed incessantly. There is absolutely no one better off with this legislation in place.
2) If it were up to me, we'd stop the wheels completely. Take the short-term hit and start over. Anything you do that leads to removing it is the right answer.
-
Y'all seemed to have missed the bold below.
Y'all want to throw good money after bad just to spite Obama, and in practicality, lots and lots of sick people who were unable to get coverage before it.
I'm "conservative" in the sense that I think gradual, careful change is always preferred to drastic radical change. I was reluctant to be in favor of Obamacare because of this. Now that it's the law of the land, I'm also opposed to scrapping it outright for exactly the same reason. Like it or not, Obamacare is now in place. The wheels are in motion. Backtracking now would cause all kinds of disruption and cost all kinds of money. Just so you can "stick it to" people in need. Not a good look.
I've never stated how I feel about Obamacare vs Trumpcare. Quite frankly, I think both sides have good intentions, and good ideas, and both sides have shootty ideas and ways to implement those shootty ideas.
I'll also add that I'm more in line with your thinking, here.
-
Not sure how you got this.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I believe in the free market. Competition keeps costs down and levels of service high. Without it? You've got what you've got now. Runaway costs, reduced service and a minimal level of quality. The entire situation is exponentially worse than it was before Hillary and Obama started meddling.
Health care lent itself to the free market quite well prior to government intervention. There was no crisis, there was no need for federal intrusion.
I think common sense absolutely bares out that when doctors start getting paid average-Joe wages, you are no longer going to get the best and the brightest entering the field of medicine. Can't imagine how you would expect that to be the case.
Oh no. I agree with you.
-
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't see how that's inconsistent in any way with telling doctors opposed to changes to or repealing an entitlement program to fuck off.
Free market. Costs will go down.
-
Was this your opinion on Obamacare or nah?
What about the Trump plan is "sticking it to big pharma and the medical profession" that Obamacare was not? I agree there need to be reforms and regulations put in place to reign in pharmaceutical companies (again, counter to my default position of government interference). Less so for "the medical profession" for reasons I already stated.
But it seemed like my stance on not completely fucking over doctors was one conservatives held to protest Obamacare. And it's one Kaos had yesterday until it no longer served him.
Was the same with Obamacare.
I'm more of a single payer kinda guy. I don't know. Maybe I'm crazy for thinking providing proper healthcare to every citizen would be more beneficial to the country than turning it into a capitalistic enterprise.
I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure what points everyone has made. I can assume what some have said and can probably accurate guess the tenor of the argument once K gets going.
I don't trust that Republicare (or the World's Greatest Health Care Plan) is going to solve the issues. It might switch the issues to a different isle, but the grocery store will still be selling too much rotten food.
-
I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure what points everyone has made. I can assume what some have said and can probably accurate guess the tenor of the argument once K gets going.
You'd be surprised. Turned out to be the most productive conversation this forum has had in years.
-
You'd be surprised. Turned out to be the most productive conversation this forum has had in years.
This. Agree or not it's substantial.
-
Was the same with Obamacare.
I'm more of a single payer kinda guy. I don't know. Maybe I'm crazy for thinking providing proper healthcare to every citizen would be more beneficial to the country than turning it into a capitalistic enterprise.
I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure what points everyone has made. I can assume what some have said and can probably accurate guess the tenor of the argument once K gets going.
I don't trust that Republicare (or the World's Greatest Health Care Plan) is going to solve the issues. It might switch the issues to a different isle, but the grocery store will still be selling too much rotten food.
Blow me, cactus jack.
Does that help?
-
Main point I've been driving at here. When do you stop increasing the money we throw at these issues?
Apparently never.
-
Was the same with Obamacare.
I'm more of a single payer kinda guy. I don't know. Maybe I'm crazy for thinking providing proper healthcare to every citizen would be more beneficial to the country than turning it into a capitalistic enterprise.
I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure what points everyone has made. I can assume what some have said and can probably accurate guess the tenor of the argument once K gets going.
I don't trust that Republicare (or the World's Greatest Health Care Plan) is going to solve the issues. It might switch the issues to a different isle, but the grocery store will still be selling too much rotten food.
You should go back and read it. It is probably one of the best threads we have ever had on the X
-
You should go back and read it. It is probably one of the best threads we have ever had on the X
Better than an offer of Luke Bryan tickets? Shut the front door.
-
Better than an offer of Luke Bryan tickets? Shut the front door.
Kaos would rather pay for free healthcare
-
Why I don't want government run anything....
Won't name the state but my company provides them a software system. Licensing and maintenance runs about $200k a year. Every five years we have to rebid but the way the bid is structured they bid out maintenance on my software. Can't do that without access to my code which I'm not giving.
If they want to change they can bid out the entire system. Conversion, implementation etc. I still have an advantage.
So. One of the programs in the state had a meeting with a local software vendor who said he could do what we do more efficiently and at a lower rate. This despite having no experience in navigating the tangled morass of federal regulation that is the basis of the system we've been doing for the last 15 years.
This guy demanded a feasibility study to determine whether they would be better off designing their own self-maintained system or continuing to use ours (our our competitors less functional more expensive version). The state caved. They hired a third party to evaluate their data entry processes and review our system capabilities.
Bear in mind we were in year one of a five year contact with three additional years of automatic opt in when this started. My people had to waste the better part of a year working with their data analysts. The first thing we had to do was essentially train them on all the federal regulations that drive the reporting. They had zero background and less than zero understanding of what they were looking at or should expect to see. Huge manpower drain for me and the state rejected my position that providing this effort was outside the scope of the contract.
So the evaluators finish, determine that there's no way in hell they could recreate what we do for what they pay. Everybody moves on.
Today I find out the state paid over $3 mil for that study. For 1/10th of that I could have made major improvement in their system AND bought a boat.
So you pay $3m to find out if it makes sense to pay $200k a year for a software system.
Good government.
-
Kaos would rather pay for free healthcare
That's cold.
If you were in a barrel and someone dipped a banana in you and then dropped that banana on the ground it would shatter…that’s how cold you are. If you were in a truck and that truck flipped over and spilled all over the T100 from Terminator 2, he would harden …that’s how cold you are. AA
-
I need someone to convince me that healthcare should be a free market commodity.
If we go back to the rulebook on this, Adam Smith would say that free enterprise requires choice. The buyer must choose to be in the marketplace for free market principals to apply.
Who volunteers to get the flu? Or cancer?
-
I need someone to convince me that healthcare should be a free market commodity.
If we go back to the rulebook on this, Adam Smith would say that free enterprise requires choice. The buyer must choose to be in the marketplace for free market principals to apply.
Who volunteers to get the flu? Or cancer?
Don't be ridiculous. People are going to get sick whether they want to be or not.
When it happens they should have the ability to choose the provider and determine what measures to take.
-
Don't be ridiculous. People are going to get sick whether they want to be or not.
Yeah. That's what I said.
-
Why I don't want government run anything....
Won't name the state but my company provides them a software system. Licensing and maintenance runs about $200k a year. Every five years we have to rebid but the way the bid is structured they bid out maintenance on my software. Can't do that without access to my code which I'm not giving.
If they want to change they can bid out the entire system. Conversion, implementation etc. I still have an advantage.
So. One of the programs in the state had a meeting with a local software vendor who said he could do what we do more efficiently and at a lower rate. This despite having no experience in navigating the tangled morass of federal regulation that is the basis of the system we've been doing for the last 15 years.
This guy demanded a feasibility study to determine whether they would be better off designing their own self-maintained system or continuing to use ours (our our competitors less functional more expensive version). The state caved. They hired a third party to evaluate their data entry processes and review our system capabilities.
Bear in mind we were in year one of a five year contact with three additional years of automatic opt in when this started. My people had to waste the better part of a year working with their data analysts. The first thing we had to do was essentially train them on all the federal regulations that drive the reporting. They had zero background and less than zero understanding of what they were looking at or should expect to see. Huge manpower drain for me and the state rejected my position that providing this effort was outside the scope of the contract.
So the evaluators finish, determine that there's no way in hell they could recreate what we do for what they pay. Everybody moves on.
Today I find out the state paid over $3 mil for that study. For 1/10th of that I could have made major improvement in their system AND bought a boat.
So you pay $3m to find out if it makes sense to pay $200k a year for a software system.
Good government.
You need better sales people. Why the fuck did you do that without threatening to pull out and leave them hanging with nothing? That was yours, or your sales people's lack of negotiating...
-
AARP is against TrumpCare
“This bill would weaken Medicare’s fiscal sustainability, dramatically increase health care costs for Americans aged 50-64 and put at risk the health care of millions of children and adults with disabilities, and poor seniors who depend on the Medicaid program for long-term services and supports and other benefits..." - Joyce A. Rogers, a senior vice president at AARP.
-
I need someone to convince me that healthcare should be a free market commodity.
If we go back to the rulebook on this, Adam Smith would say that free enterprise requires choice. The buyer must choose to be in the marketplace for free market principals to apply.
Who volunteers to get the flu? Or cancer?
Why are you being so obtuse?
-
I need someone to convince me that healthcare should be a free market commodity.
If we go back to the rulebook on this, Adam Smith would say that free enterprise requires choice. The buyer must choose to be in the marketplace for free market principals to apply.
Who volunteers to get the flu? Or cancer?
That's like saying "Who volunteers to be homeless?" so we must socialize housing. "Who volunteers to starve?" we must now socialize food. "Who volunteers to not drive where they want to go?" so everyone must receive their taxpayer funded cars.
The logical conclusion of that line of thinking doesn't end at vital necessities.
"Who volunteers not to have a swimming pool?" "Who volunteers not to have expensive clothes?" "Who volunteers not to have the latest generation iPad?"
-
That's like saying "Who volunteers to be homeless?" so we must socialize housing. "Who volunteers to starve?" we must now socialize food. "Who volunteers to not drive where they want to go?" so everyone must receive their taxpayer funded cars.
The logical conclusion of that line of thinking doesn't end at vital necessities.
"Who volunteers not to have a swimming pool?" "Who volunteers not to have expensive clothes?" "Who volunteers not to have the latest generation iPad?"
I disagree.
Health and healthcare is unique.
I still believe that the "free market" argument is a tool the "haves" use to continue to play keep away from the "have-nots." We don't live in a free market nation.
-
I disagree.
Health and healthcare is unique.
I still believe that the "free market" argument is a tool the "haves" use to continue to play keep away from the "have-nots." We don't live in a free market nation.
Why do you want people to be homeless and to starve with no means of transportation? Ya dirty "have".
-
Honest to God, this thread has restored my faith and belief in this great country. Intelligent people (who are all notorious assholes and line steppers) discussing a serious problem with intelligent debate.
Thank you, TigersX.
-
Wes-----------------Chizad-----------------Kaos
In this political year I've learned that I'm between Chad and Kaos but I'm probably a little closer to Chad.
-
Wes-----------------Chizad-----------------Kaos
In this political year I've learned that I'm between Chad and Kaos but I'm probably a little closer to Chad.
I'm closer to Godfather. Damn, that guy is hawt.
-
This thread is chock-full of gay.
-
I disagree.
Health and healthcare is unique.
I still believe that the "free market" argument is a tool the "haves" use to continue to play keep away from the "have-nots." We don't live in a free market nation.
Yes. We do.
Healthcare isn't unique. It's a commodity
-
So, hopefully back to the drawing board for TrumpCare. They need more than 8 years to come up with a better solution that doesn't put a large percentage of the population at risk...smh.
"It’s an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." - Trump
-
Jim Acosta ✔ @Acosta
Trump told Tea Party groups at WH if GOP health care plan dies, he will let Obamacare fail and let Dems take the blame, I'm told.
8:35 PM - 8 Mar 2017
So, if he doesn't get his way, he's going stomp his feet and pout, then he's going to make sure millions of Americans die...blame it on the Democrats.
-
Jim Acosta ✔ @Acosta
Trump told Tea Party groups at WH if GOP health care plan dies, he will let Obamacare fail and let Dems take the blame, I'm told.
8:35 PM - 8 Mar 2017
So, if he doesn't get his way, he's going stomp his feet and pout, then he's going to make sure millions of Americans die...blame it on the Democrats.
Sad
-
Jim Acosta ✔ @Acosta
Trump told Tea Party groups at WH if GOP health care plan dies, he will let Obamacare fail and let Dems take the blame, I'm told.
8:35 PM - 8 Mar 2017
So, if he doesn't get his way, he's going stomp his feet and pout, then he's going to make sure millions of Americans die...blame it on the Democrats.
Idiot.
I hope the democrats are the ones to die.
-
I disagree.
Health and healthcare is unique.
I still believe that the "free market" argument is a tool the "haves" use to continue to play keep away from the "have-nots." We don't live in a free market nation.
How can I have a "right" to someone else's time and services? In order for me to receive healthcare, it has to be provided by someone else. What do we do in the event of a doctor shortage? Is the government going to force anyone with a RN, LPN, or PhD in medicine to work? Not allow them to retire until they're 80? What will be the incentive of going to medical school if I'm going to be capped in what I can make by the government?
My rights end where someone else's begin. I don't have a "right" to someone else's labor.
-
I'm closer to Godfather. Damn, that guy is hawt.
Yes! He most certainly....I mean yeah he's a pretty ok dude.
-
Jim Acosta ✔ @Acosta
Trump told Tea Party groups at WH if GOP health care plan dies, he will let Obamacare fail and let Dems take the blame, I'm told.
8:35 PM - 8 Mar 2017
So, if he doesn't get his way, he's going stomp his feet and pout, then he's going to make sure millions of Americans die...blame it on the Democrats.
Everyone ignore the child. ^. And I thought townhall was the king of extreme hyperbole.
-
I need someone to convince me that healthcare should be a free market commodity.
If we go back to the rulebook on this, Adam Smith would say that free enterprise requires choice. The buyer must choose to be in the marketplace for free market principals to apply.
Who volunteers to get the flu? Or cancer?
What about this Wes - what if it's free market but more in the mold of a 501c or non profit? Where they do turn a profit not wanting to operate in the red of course but where maybe the bottom line buck or stock price isn't maybe the main driver? Just a thought.
-
Yes. We do.
Name one (legal) market in the United States that is purely capitalistic.
How can I have a "right" to someone else's time and services? In order for me to receive healthcare, it has to be provided by someone else. What do we do in the event of a doctor shortage? Is the government going to force anyone with a RN, LPN, or PhD in medicine to work? Not allow them to retire until they're 80? What will be the incentive of going to medical school if I'm going to be capped in what I can make by the government?
My rights end where someone else's begin. I don't have a "right" to someone else's labor.
The "managed" market will create incentives for production. I'm not saying that there is a binary choice: complete laissez faire or total market strangulation. There is a continuum of regulation.
What about this Wes - what if it's free market but more in the mold of a 501c or non profit? Where they do turn a profit not wanting to operate in the red of course but where maybe the bottom line buck or stock price isn't maybe the main driver? Just a thought.
I'm not sure what you mean. Take the "profit" out of healthcare altogether? Great. Let's start with pharma.
-
Take the "profit" out of healthcare altogether? Great. Let's start with pharma.
I agree! I'd follow immediately with tort reform. Driving down the cost of medical malpractice insurance will surely help make healthcare more affordable.
-
Name one (legal) market in the United States that is purely capitalistic.
Alcohol and Strip Clubs...thats 2
-
Name one (legal) market in the United States that is purely capitalistic.
The "managed" market will create incentives for production. I'm not saying that there is a binary choice: complete laissez faire or total market strangulation. There is a continuum of regulation.
I'm not sure what you mean. Take the "profit" out of healthcare altogether? Great. Let's start with pharma.
You make point by point pointless when you're wrong on every count.
I wonder sometimes if you are an alter. Like some watusi or hindi who has never lived or worked in America hacked your account.
I honestly don't see how you can think this way.
-
Alcohol and Strip Clubs...thats 2
You go straight to my zone of expertise? Rookie move.
You make point by point pointless when you're wrong on every count.
I wonder sometimes if you are an alter. Like some watusi or hindi who has never lived or worked in America hacked your account.
I honestly don't see how you can think this way.
Nonresponsive in any way. So you can't:
Name one (legal) market in the United States that is purely capitalistic.
-
I agree! I'd follow immediately with tort reform. Driving down the cost of medical malpractice insurance will surely help make healthcare more affordable.
I'll listen to your proposal, I don't think there should be any sacred cows in the discussion.
-
I agree! I'd follow immediately with tort reform. Driving down the cost of medical malpractice insurance will surely help make healthcare more affordable.
You can't take the profit out of it. At that point you're relying on pure altruism in order to develop new cures. The days of a Salk laboring in relative poverty to develop a cure are gone.
You can't regulate the ability to make a living out of it. What happens then is government labs become the research facilities. Everybody dies.
The only way to regulate costs is to get the government completely out of it. Natural selection takes care of the rest.
-
You go straight to my zone of expertise? Rookie move.
Nonresponsive in any way. So you can't:
"Purely capitalistic"
That's your standard. Just because the government HAS interfered doesn't mean that it should have.
I'm talking basic supply and demand. Like every business in the country. Restaurants, hair salons whatever
You are most certainly being obtuse. Your arbitrary standard of "pure capitalism" only obscures the fact that 90% of the service providers in this country live and die under the basic concepts of capitalism.
Since we are challenging, how about you show me one industry improved by a meddling government.
-
"Purely capitalistic"
That's your standard.
No, that's your standard. You are arguing for free market principles to apply to healthcare. I'm saying that those principles don't apply and asking for an exemplary market to demonstrate free market/capitalist ideas at work.
how about you show me one industry improved by a meddling government.
I think, had they survived, the workers at the Triangle Shirt Factory would say that manufacturing labor conditions are improved by government meddling.
-
I agree! I'd follow immediately with tort reform. Driving down the cost of medical malpractice insurance will surely help make healthcare more affordable.
Nurra' please. HUGE misconception.
-
No, that's your standard. You are arguing for free market principles to apply to healthcare. I'm saying that those principles don't apply and asking for an exemplary market to demonstrate free market/capitalist ideas at work.
I think, had they survived, the workers at the Triangle Shirt Factory would say that manufacturing labor conditions are improved by government meddling.
Free market principles and "pure capitalism" are not the same things. Those principles absolutely do apply -- and should.
So you pull an example from 1911, and one that was much more union involvement than government intervention.
That's a beaut, Clark.
-
Free market principles and "pure capitalism" are not the same things. Those principles absolutely do apply -- and should.
So you pull an example from 1911, and one that was much more union involvement than government intervention.
That's a beaut, Clark.
So you still can't:
Name one (legal) market in the United States that is purely capitalistic
-
I'll listen to your proposal, I don't think there should be any sacred cows in the discussion.
I know its your field wes, but its a valid point. I know a few dr.'s personally and they've both been driven to the point of having to rethink their careers due to medical malpractice insurance. And its a tricky area because there are legit cases of it. But its been very abused in the last 25 years. There has to be a good middle ground somewhere to the point where costs are driven down but Doctors can still be held liable in legit cases.
What Im saying on the 501c point was that I don't have an issue with them making a profit to stay afloat. Just saying maybe it shouldn't be the main driver, which it is now in Big Pharma. Kind of how charities operate - they stay afloat but profit isn't their main goal (well, actually now for some it is but thats another argument).
-
Name one (legal) market in the United States that is purely capitalistic.
My business:
I represent 17 different manufacturers of disposable foodservice products. I take what they make, mark it up for profit ( As high as the market will allow), and sell it to restaurants and distributors throughout the USA.
While the manufacturers may be regulated by the EPA etc, I am not. I am simply an evil profit monger
Capitalism in it's purest form
-
So you still can't:
Because it's fucking absolutely irrelevant.
Free market. Supply and demand. All those things. But keep creating false targets.
-
I'll listen to your proposal, I don't think there should be any sacred cows in the discussion.
And you're a vegan. It makes so much sense now.
:facepalm:
-
Wes-----------------Chizad-----------------Kaos
In this political year I've learned that I'm between Chad and Kaos but I'm probably a little closer to Chad.
The left/right paradigm is increasingly less meaningful than the full political compass IMO. On a 2D map, more libertarian tendencies will skew you further to the left than you really are.
I made this purely based on my perception of regular posters to the political forum. I think it's accurate, but I'm sure people will disagree, especially about themselves.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/Chizad-Lappy/TigersXPoliticalCompass.jpg)
-
I know its your field wes, but its a valid point. I know a few dr.'s personally and they've both been driven to the point of having to rethink their careers due to medical malpractice insurance. And its a tricky area because there are legit cases of it. But its been very abused in the last 25 years. There has to be a good middle ground somewhere to the point where costs are driven down but Doctors can still be held liable in legit cases.
What Im saying on the 501c point was that I don't have an issue with them making a profit to stay afloat. Just saying maybe it shouldn't be the main driver, which it is now in Big Pharma. Kind of how charities operate - they stay afloat but profit isn't their main goal (well, actually now for some it is but thats another argument).
Won't work.
When you remove the incentive of profit, you eliminate the possibility of hiring the best and brightest. You're reduced to either government hiring people to run research labs (Jay Jacobs level fail) or you're only getting those who have a selfless desire to serve humanity in those research roles (look at the education system where teachers don't make shit and people like me who loved the job can't afford to feed their families and stay).
This is a much, much bigger argument but when you've got a Demare Carroll (who, you ask? Valid point) making $14.2 million a year while a Beth Berry (high school English teacher) makes $35,000 then you've got a society that's fundamentally flawed. Think about that. The average high school teacher cannot make in five lifetimes what a worthless NBA player makes in a single season.
If you really want to talk about redistributing wealth, that's where to do it. I don't want to, at all, but if you're hell bent on making that happen? Figure out some way to balance that equation. But even then, it's a business. People, advertisers PAY in order for the money to be available to hand Demare that kind of money. Is it fair to penalize him?
-
The left/right paradigm is increasingly less meaningful than the full political compass IMO. On a 2D map, more libertarian tendencies will skew you further to the left than you really are.
I made this purely based on my perception of regular posters to the political forum. I think it's accurate, but I'm sure people will disagree, especially about themselves.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/Chizad-Lappy/TigersXPoliticalCompass.jpg)
Completely mischaracterized me. But ok.
-
Completely mischaracterized me. But ok.
To the left an inch and down two inches and he's got me nailed.
Whoa...that sounded kinky.
-
The left/right paradigm is increasingly less meaningful than the full political compass IMO. On a 2D map, more libertarian tendencies will skew you further to the left than you really are.
I made this purely based on my perception of regular posters to the political forum. I think it's accurate, but I'm sure people will disagree, especially about themselves.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/Chizad-Lappy/TigersXPoliticalCompass.jpg)
If by Authoritarian you mean, take care of your own shit and live with the consequences of your own decisions, then I am fine with where you placed me.
-
If by Authoritarian you mean, take care of your own shit and live with the consequences of your own decisions, then I am fine with where you placed me.
He may be using a "total picture" live and let live on the Auth vs Libertarian spectrum - meaning financial AND social. Not sure.
-
The left/right paradigm is increasingly less meaningful than the full political compass IMO. On a 2D map, more libertarian tendencies will skew you further to the left than you really are.
I made this purely based on my perception of regular posters to the political forum. I think it's accurate, but I'm sure people will disagree, especially about themselves.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/Chizad-Lappy/TigersXPoliticalCompass.jpg)
heck I post more than Godfather and AUJarhead.
-
I would probably align more with where GH should be. A little more to the left and down.
-
If by Authoritarian you mean, take care of your own shit and live with the consequences of your own decisions, then I am fine with where you placed me.
Part, but not all of it. That's more to do with left/right, actually.
He may be using a "total picture" live and let live on the Auth vs Libertarian spectrum - meaning financial AND social. Not sure.
Left/Right is more financial, Auth/Lib is more social.
Token gets dragged way up the authoritarian scale, comparative to where he'd be otherwise, for his views on law & order and the police state. Ogre would be closer to me if not for some religious stances. Neither are a fault, just an observation and explanation to why I put people where I did.
-
heck I post more than Godfather and AUJarhead.
Yeah, but I don't read your posts.
I would probably align more with where GH should be. A little more to the left and down.
Left you out and I agree. I'd have put you a little to the right and below Ogre.
I also forgot Saniflush who I'd put just below and just to the right of TownhallSavoy.
-
The left/right paradigm is increasingly less meaningful than the full political compass IMO. On a 2D map, more libertarian tendencies will skew you further to the left than you really are.
I made this purely based on my perception of regular posters to the political forum. I think it's accurate, but I'm sure people will disagree, especially about themselves.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/Chizad-Lappy/TigersXPoliticalCompass.jpg)
Almost accurate for me. I find myself moving more Left and more Libertarian (strange combo) as I'm getting older and not wealthy.
-
I would probably align more with where GH should be. A little more to the left and down.
You love to go down.
-
Almost accurate for me. I find myself moving more Left and more Libertarian (strange combo) as I'm getting older and not wealthy.
I have noticed this and was going to drift you in that direction to reflect that, but made it more comprehensive rather than recent for you, perhaps to a fault on my part.
And there's nothing contradictory about left-libertarianism.
-
Yeah, but I don't read your posts.
Thats a burn felt clear to the PNW. That should warm your weather up a bit.
-
Almost accurate for me. I find myself moving more Left and more Libertarian (strange combo) as I'm getting older and not wealthy.
You did call for a single payer system in this thread, which moves you squarely into the red box on my chart. And yes, I have a chart.
-
Vertical is pretty spot on. Horizontally I am more right. Marriage I am always wrong.
Probably Ogre position but above him per usual.
-
The chart is nice and all even though I'm not nearly as far right as it reflects and wes is hilariously too far toward the middle.
It's distracting from the issues however. I'd almost rather have movie quotes
-
I also forgot Saniflush who I'd put just below and just to the right of TownhallSavoy.
Really depends on the issue for me like it does with most people. By and large I want the government out of most everything that it absolutely doesn't have to be in.
-
Probably Ogre position but above him per usual.
You always liked it on top.
-
Thats a burn felt clear to the PNW. That should warm your weather up a bit.
yep...but i can still smell his pussy clear over the rockies and cascades.
he loves me though.
-
The chart is nice and all even though I'm not nearly as far right as it reflects and wes is hilariously too far toward the middle.
It's distracting from the issues however. I'd almost rather have movie quotes
When you don't waver on gays and illegals, you get labeled a right winger. I'm OK with that. I know exactly who I am.
-
Part, but not all of it. That's more to do with left/right, actually.
Left/Right is more financial, Auth/Lib is more social.
Token gets dragged way up the authoritarian scale, comparative to where he'd be otherwise, for his views on law & order and the police state. Ogre would be closer to me if not for some religious stances. Neither are a fault, just an observation and explanation to why I put people where I did.
Obviously my profession pulls me to the top but I can assure you compared to others in my field I'm probably a lot closer to you than I should be. Specifically when it comes to alcohol and narcotics.
-
Point of odor: You didn't have to. It was indelibly etched into your post. You suffer from white privilege syndrome. You feel guilty because you have more than others. It's a disease.
No, I don't. But thanks for telling me how I feel. This sort of labeling makes these discussions easier for you. You can simply slap a label on someone and be dismissive. People are generally more nuanced than that.
-
My business:
I represent 17 different manufacturers of disposable foodservice products. I take what they make, mark it up for profit ( As high as the market will allow), and sell it to restaurants and distributors throughout the USA.
While the manufacturers may be regulated by the EPA etc, I am not. I am simply an evil profit monger
Capitalism in it's purest form
Off the top of my head, you're still subject to/impacted by the following regulations:
SBA competition
business license requirements
antitrust laws
FTC advertising/marketing regulations
-
No, I don't. But thanks for telling me how I feel. This sort of labeling makes these discussions easier for you. You can simply slap a label on someone and be dismissive. People are generally more nuanced than that.
This coming from you? Rich.
-
Almost accurate for me. I find myself moving more Left and more Libertarian (strange combo) as I'm getting older and not wealthy.
This is an interesting comment to me. Why would not being wealthy move you in any way? Why is wealthy a reason to every change core values? Why is wealth that important?
I'm not wealthy and figured out years ago that I'm either not capable of being wealthy or not willing to make the sacrifices it takes. But I did figure out how to live inside my means AND enjoy life at the same time. Not pointing specifically at you here THS but I do think this is the problem with our current society and it bleeds over into every social and political aspect. I'm not going to own a business, be in the top 1% or even be able to do everything I'd like to do before I die. That's ok. What I do own is mine and I've either already paid for it or am currently paying for it.
I wish we as a society could focus more on obtaining a higher quality WITHOUT having to be wealthy.
-
Yeah, but damn I'd like to give wealthy a try. If I don't like it, I swear I'll give it all back.
-
Yeah, but damn I'd like to give wealthy a try. If I don't like it, I swear I'll give it all back.
What would you do if you had a million dollars?
-
What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Tell you what I'd do. Two chicks at the same time, man.
-
What would you do if you had a million dollars?
But to be honest I'd add it to the other 20 million I already have of course.
-
But to be honest I'd add it to the other 20 million I already have of course.
Admit it, you have a big safe full of money that you jump in like Scrooge McDuck, don't you?
-
Admit it, you have a big safe full of money that you jump in like Scrooge McDuck, don't you?
(http://www.tigersx.com/images/snags_cash.jpg)
-
This is an interesting comment to me. Why would not being wealthy move you in any way? Why is wealthy a reason to every change core values? Why is wealth that important?
I'm not wealthy and figured out years ago that I'm either not capable of being wealthy or not willing to make the sacrifices it takes. But I did figure out how to live inside my means AND enjoy life at the same time. Not pointing specifically at you here THS but I do think this is the problem with our current society and it bleeds over into every social and political aspect. I'm not going to own a business, be in the top 1% or even be able to do everything I'd like to do before I die. That's ok. What I do own is mine and I've either already paid for it or am currently paying for it.
I wish we as a society could focus more on obtaining a higher quality WITHOUT having to be wealthy.
This is a really interesting point.
You want to see an ardent Republican? Take somebody from a poor background and let them get rich, particularly if they make it on their own.
It's easy to talk about redistributing the wealth when it's not your wealth that's being redistributed. When you have money all of a sudden it's easy to see the inherent unfairness in taking away what you worked and slaved and sacrificed to earn to give it to someone who had the same opportunity and by bad luck or poor choices didn't achieve what you did.
The entire concept of "leveling the field" is socialist at its core. It's Animal Farm and it will never, ever, ever, ever work. What does work and has been proven time after time is seeing someone make their way out as an example.
The problems we have now? We've developed a culture of expectation. Even within the last generation. When I turned 16 I hoped I'd have a car to drive when my parents weren't using it. That was less than optimal. I wanted my own car so I got a job, got a loan (with dad's help) and bought my own. Used 65 Mustang that took some work to get to where I wanted it to be. My kids? They started looking when they were 15 to see what kind of car they might want to be given. And I gave them cars. All of their friends were given cars, many of them new. One of my best friends got a second job so he could pay for his son's car. At no point did it cross his mind to make his son work to pay for it -- even though he, like me, had gotten a job at 16 in order to be able to have his own car.
It's no longer enough for so many to have opportunity. They want immediate results. Nice apartment, nice car, new furniture... right out of the gate.
When I tried college the first time, I lived in a filthy rathole because it was all I could afford. My kids? Swank gated apartment complex with two pools, a rec room, a gym, a spa, volleyball courts, grilling areas...
The idea of sacrifice and saving has been rendered moot. Doing without is for the other suckers. And if that means Prowler thinks I should give up 40% of the money I WORK for? Well, that's just too bad for me. It doesn't matter that for the first three or four years after I started my business I worked 18-20 hours a day, maxed out all my credit cards to keep things going, missed time with my girls, and couldn't always get them the things we needed because I was sacrificing those things in order to build the business. He doesn't care that there was a point about three years in where the economy struggled, some of the states with which we had contracts froze their spending and I was literally two or three weeks at most from not being able to make it through. That doesn't matter. Some people don't make as much as I do, so I should give up the money I earned so we can all be closer to even.
I say FUCK that. I've contributed to it. I've raised kids who haven't learned the hard lessons of survival. I'm ashamed of that. But at least I've raised them to try to solve their own problems and not look to government to do it.
Unfortunately we've devolved as a society. When I was a kid and I saw people who lived in big houses and had nice things I thought to myself "what do I have to do so I can have those things too?" Today, the Prowlers of the world look at people who have more and think "what can I do to take away from them so we all have the same things..." It's a diseased mindset. Penalizing people who achieve more is backward thinking.
I agree with Token. Far too many people these days are obsessed with and jealous of what others have when they should instead be grateful for their own lives. "The poor" in this country would be considered fat and wealthy in 90% of the rest of the world.
-
This is a really interesting point.
You want to see an ardent Republican? Take somebody from a poor background and let them get rich, particularly if they make it on their own.
It's easy to talk about redistributing the wealth when it's not your wealth that's being redistributed. When you have money all of a sudden it's easy to see the inherent unfairness in taking away what you worked and slaved and sacrificed to earn to give it to someone who had the same opportunity and by bad luck or poor choices didn't achieve what you did.
The entire concept of "leveling the field" is socialist at its core. It's Animal Farm and it will never, ever, ever, ever work. What does work and has been proven time after time is seeing someone make their way out as an example.
The problems we have now? We've developed a culture of expectation. Even within the last generation. When I turned 16 I hoped I'd have a car to drive when my parents weren't using it. That was less than optimal. I wanted my own car so I got a job, got a loan (with dad's help) and bought my own. Used 65 Mustang that took some work to get to where I wanted it to be. My kids? They started looking when they were 15 to see what kind of car they might want to be given. And I gave them cars. All of their friends were given cars, many of them new. One of my best friends got a second job so he could pay for his son's car. At no point did it cross his mind to make his son work to pay for it -- even though he, like me, had gotten a job at 16 in order to be able to have his own car.
It's no longer enough for so many to have opportunity. They want immediate results. Nice apartment, nice car, new furniture... right out of the gate.
When I tried college the first time, I lived in a filthy rathole because it was all I could afford. My kids? Swank gated apartment complex with two pools, a rec room, a gym, a spa, volleyball courts, grilling areas...
The idea of sacrifice and saving has been rendered moot. Doing without is for the other suckers. And if that means Prowler thinks I should give up 40% of the money I WORK for? Well, that's just too bad for me. It doesn't matter that for the first three or four years after I started my business I worked 18-20 hours a day, maxed out all my credit cards to keep things going, missed time with my girls, and couldn't always get them the things we needed because I was sacrificing those things in order to build the business. He doesn't care that there was a point about three years in where the economy struggled, some of the states with which we had contracts froze their spending and I was literally two or three weeks at most from not being able to make it through. That doesn't matter. Some people don't make as much as I do, so I should give up the money I earned so we can all be closer to even.
I say FUCK that. I've contributed to it. I've raised kids who haven't learned the hard lessons of survival. I'm ashamed of that. But at least I've raised them to try to solve their own problems and not look to government to do it.
Unfortunately we've devolved as a society. When I was a kid and I saw people who lived in big houses and had nice things I thought to myself "what do I have to do so I can have those things too?" Today, the Prowlers of the world look at people who have more and think "what can I do to take away from them so we all have the same things..." It's a diseased mindset. Penalizing people who achieve more is backward thinking.
I agree with Token. Far too many people these days are obsessed with and jealous of what others have when they should instead be grateful for their own lives. "The poor" in this country would be considered fat and wealthy in 90% of the rest of the world.
This. All of it.
When I was young I used to actually idolize people like trump and steve jobs and others who were notoriously successful and not ashamed of it. Instead of ever being jealous I wanted to be like them. Yeah sure you are going to have some snot nosed brat types that get everything handed to them. I saw them in college. Most had new cars, nice clothes, lived in the nice big frat house over off Magnolia, etc etc. I worked my way through. Had a shitty efficiency apt. A piece of shit car. The definition of eeking through. And the haves? Fuk them. Just keep grinding. Don't like being a have not? Go become a have. Is it gonna be hard? Damn fuckin right it is. How bad do you want it.
My dad was a mill laborer when I was born. My mother couldn't even find permanent work. And houses were unattainable unless you were rich because of the double digit interest rates combined with stagflation. Those were all the side effects of the years that were the carter administration. I lived my first years in them. It was rough for my parents. I'm sorry but there are no excuses. Most people that have nice things and nice lives now didn't always have it. They earned it.
I know you are also no exception K. You've busted your ass for decades. And for someone to demand it for themselves because they dont have it is truly deplorable. Especially when it's being espoused by people like Bernie.
-
K you shouldn't be ashamed for taking care of your kids. It doesn't mean they will grow up to be useless or me first adults. I think it is more important to be a figure/leader for your kids. To follow through and set expectations of them, especially as adults.
Case in point is myself. I was given everything growing up. I was given my first vehicle (not new) but still, My college education was paid for, including living off campus and everything it entails. But I respected (still do) my parents and I tried never to take advantage of them.
I also knew my parents would follow through on the expectations they set for me and the outcomes could be good or bad depending on if those expectations were met. My parent's weren't bad enablers. They enabled me to get to where I am, but they never rewarded bad behaviors. Which seems to happen more in this world.
I look at a friend of ours who has a 24 year old son who is still living at home and "wandering" through college. I joked with him (the 24 yr old) if he is ever going to graduate, and that his sister who is 20 is going to graduate before him. He doesn't care and has no interest because he is living the life. His bedroom at his parents has it's own entry and exit and it has a bathroom. His mom still cooks and does the laundry and he has no expenses and they don't care. They enable him to be the way he is.
<side bar>When I changed my major my Senior year of college my Mom freaked the fuck out. My Dad calmly said you can choose to do whatever you want son, however I am paying for school up until August of next year (that was 4 quarters) after that it is on you. I busted my ass and still graduated in May leaving myself some room because I wasn't going to pay for school myself. </side bar> I don't think the 24 yr old would care if his parents told him that, I don't know that they would follow through. Because they won't let him fail.
I knew my Dad absolutely would cut my ass off and for sure as hell would throw my ass out too.
-
Well said, GF.
-
I started at Auburn, but I was not a student at that time, too young and immature. My parents put away money for me to go, but I would have wasted it trying to continue. I dropped out and joined the military.
They sent me post card from Mexico while I was In basic training thanking me for the trip.
I was sad. :sad:
-
I started at Auburn, but I was not a student at that time, too young and immature. My parents put away money for me to go, but I would have wasted it trying to continue. I dropped out and joined the military.
They sent me post card from Mexico while I was In basic training thanking me for the trip.
I was sad. :sad:
:huh:
so you mopped floors and solved mathematical equations in the hallway?
-
CBO report is out. Ugly.
-
CBO report is out. Ugly.
And we both know that to see what the real cost will be, add 30-40% onto the cost and the number of people that will lose insurance.
-
:huh:
so you mopped floors and solved mathematical equations in the hallway?
He was about to move up to the fries too. That's when the big bucks start rolling in.
-
He was about to move up to the fries too. That's when the big bucks start rolling in.
No way in hell is he assistant manager material.
-
:huh:
so you mopped floors and solved mathematical equations in the hallway?
Even apples hated him.
-10 to Buzz!
-
CBO report is out. Ugly.
I'm not so sure. Relative to Obamacare, at least.
The biggest hit against it is that under ObamaCare, 28 million people would be uninsured by 2026. Under the GOP plan, that number increases to 54 million. Sounds bad. But keep in mind that those 28 million people (about 9% of the country) are PAYING A PENALTY to not have this mandatory insurance. The CBO says specifically that "most of the increase" is from people "losing" insurance so they no longer have to pay the penalties under ObamaCare. Also the premiums will be (marginally) cheaper, and you're free to actually CHOOSE if you want coverage or not.
And it's not only cheaper to the average member, but it COSTS less too.
$883 billion tax cut
$1.2 trillion spending cut
$337 billion in deficit reduction
Seriously asking, what is your take on why it is obviously significantly worse than what it's replacing Wes?
-
:huh:
so you mopped floors and solved mathematical equations in the hallway?
Goodwill Dallas?
-
I'm not so sure. Relative to Obamacare, at least.
The biggest hit against it is that under ObamaCare, 28 million people would be uninsured by 2026. Under the GOP plan, that number increases to 54 million. Sounds bad. But keep in mind that those 28 million people (about 9% of the country) are PAYING A PENALTY to not have this mandatory insurance. The CBO says specifically that "most of the increase" is from people "losing" insurance so they no longer have to pay the penalties under ObamaCare. Also the premiums will be (marginally) cheaper, and you're free to actually CHOOSE if you want coverage or not.
And it's not only cheaper to the average member, but it COSTS less too.
$883 billion tax cut
$1.2 trillion spending cut
$337 billion in deficit reduction
Seriously asking, what is your take on why it is obviously significantly worse than what it's replacing Wes?
Correct. It's gonna cost either way. This is the lesser. It's a one time short term hit. The cost to keep it is astronomical.
-
I'm not so sure. Relative to Obamacare, at least.
The biggest hit against it is that under ObamaCare, 28 million people would be uninsured by 2026. Under the GOP plan, that number increases to 54 million. Sounds bad. But keep in mind that those 28 million people (about 9% of the country) are PAYING A PENALTY to not have this mandatory insurance. The CBO says specifically that "most of the increase" is from people "losing" insurance so they no longer have to pay the penalties under ObamaCare. Also the premiums will be (marginally) cheaper, and you're free to actually CHOOSE if you want coverage or not.
And it's not only cheaper to the average member, but it COSTS less too.
$883 billion tax cut
$1.2 trillion spending cut
$337 billion in deficit reduction
Seriously asking, what is your take on why it is obviously significantly worse than what it's replacing Wes?
The "deficit reduction" comes entirely from the Medicare/Medicaid budget cuts. Good luck passing this. The elderly vote.
-
The elderly vote.
I can fix this with a drive by in the wiregrass area.
-
The "deficit reduction" comes entirely from the Medicare/Medicaid budget cuts. Good luck passing this. The elderly vote.
Nice shift.
Move quickly away from "it sucks because....uh... Trump!" to "It's never gonna pass."
Also doesn't answer the question -- AT ALL.
-
Nice shift.
Move quickly away from "it sucks because....uh... Trump!" to "It's never gonna pass."
Also doesn't answer the question -- AT ALL.
I'll try to be clearer: the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid will endanger people.
-
I'll try to be clearer: the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid will endanger people.
Even if we bring the costs down? And give some good tax credits?
And are we confusing 20% reduction in Medicare costs with 20% in reduction of care? Because they aren't the same. Especially when efficiency measures are put in effect.
-
I'll try to be clearer: the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid will endanger people.
:rofl:
Mule shit.
-
Rachel Maddow told me tonight that Trump actually paid $38 million in taxes in 2005
-
Even if we bring the costs down? And give some good tax credits?
And are we confusing 20% reduction in Medicare costs with 20% in reduction of care? Because they aren't the same. Especially when efficiency measures are put in effect.
Sure, cost control would be fantastic. The formula that artificially caps federal matching of Medicaid funds is a clumsy tool to enact that, though. A pandemic, the effects of a continued "war on drugs" with the silent partnership of the private prison industry on the opioid epidemic, or escalation of the international tensions resulting in some calamity...all could send a state sailing through the federal cap and exposing those who rely on Medicaid (often the very young, old and disabled) to unnecessary risk.
-
I swear I didn't smoke anything before clicking on this thread.
-
Sure, cost control would be fantastic. The formula that artificially caps federal matching of Medicaid funds is a clumsy tool to enact that, though. A pandemic, the effects of a continued "war on drugs" with the silent partnership of the private prison industry on the opioid epidemic, or escalation of the international tensions resulting in some calamity...all could send a state sailing through the federal cap and exposing those who rely on Medicaid (often the very young, old and disabled) to unnecessary risk.
And zombies from the planet Sargon could eat through the ozone layer and shit flaming rainbows into the night sky. If we're talking calamitous what ifs and all.
So your solution is to continue to do what doesn't work and grease more money up the hogs ass that is medicaid? That's a great idea.
-
And zombies from the planet Sargon could eat through the ozone layer and shit flaming rainbows into the night sky. If we're talking calamitous what ifs and all.
So your solution is to continue to do what doesn't work and grease more money up the hogs ass that is medicaid? That's a great idea.
Ok that would be soooo cool man.
-
So your solution is to continue to do what doesn't work and grease more money up the hogs ass that is medicaid? That's a great idea.
Medicaid is routinely compared to private insurance and found to be more efficient and better at controlling cost increases.
And, my goal is to have everyone insured (public or private) so, kicking a bunch of people off the insurance rolls (especially those most vulnerable) isn't a palatable option for me.
-
Medicaid is routinely compared to private insurance and found to be more efficient and better at controlling cost increases.
And, my goal is to have everyone insured (public or private) so, kicking a bunch of people off the insurance rolls (especially those most vulnerable) isn't a palatable option for me.
Because they contract that lower rate with medical providers. It short changes a lot of doctors. It's why a lot of them don't like taking it. It can be debated on what the procedure should cost - I get that. But it should be at a rate that both the customer can pay and the doctor can make a living from. Believe it or not lots of doctors and hospitals are struggling with the bottom line because of their own costs that they can't do much about.
-
And, my goal is to have everyone insured (public or private) so, kicking a bunch of people off the insurance rolls (especially those most vulnerable) isn't a palatable option for me.
A) Your "goal" is socialist folly.
B) Darwin, bitch
C) Nobody's being kicked off anything. If you're sick in this country you get care. Peeriod. Was that way before the Imam ruined the lives of millions of Americans who can no longer afford to take care of themselves.
Here's the thing. Before Obamabitch I could pay for full coverage for all of my employees. We had a good plan with really good benefits. We now have a substantially shittier plan with higher yearly deductibles, higher co-pays, higher prescription costs, fewer covered procedures, less preventative care, and premiums that are more than three times what they were eight years ago.
I want to take care of my employees. I want to take care of myself. When government interferes to the point that I can no longer afford to do that?
THAT'S what's not palatable. It doesn't work.
When you solve the problems of jobs fleeing the country because of shitty policies enacted by democratic presidents? The insurance "crisis" ( which never fucking existed in the first place ) goes away. When you rid the country of millions of people just living off the government ( what the democrats want, because on the dole is under control ) and put them to work you can leave insurance alone. It will regulate itself through competition.
Right now we reward destructive behavior. Have one kid get a check. Have two? Get more. Have three, four, five, six, seven... just keep on getting. There have to be consequences for bad choices and people with your mindset seem to be unwilling to accept this basic fact. Everybody gets the same free healthcare is NOT a consequence.
I've said a lot of times that I respect your opinion, but you're a raving lunatic if you honestly believe that management will have a better chance at controlling costs than the free enterprise market. You've lost touch with reality if you can't see that everyone is NOT entitled to the same level of anything.
That's -- again -- equal outcomes. It's socialism. It's not going to work here, now or ever.
-
A) Your "goal" is socialist folly.
B) Darwin, bitch
C) Nobody's being kicked off anything. If you're sick in this country you get care. Peeriod. Was that way before the Imam ruined the lives of millions of Americans who can no longer afford to take care of themselves.
Here's the thing. Before Obamabitch I could pay for full coverage for all of my employees. We had a good plan with really good benefits. We now have a substantially shittier plan with higher yearly deductibles, higher co-pays, higher prescription costs, fewer covered procedures, less preventative care, and premiums that are more than three times what they were eight years ago.
I want to take care of my employees. I want to take care of myself. When government interferes to the point that I can no longer afford to do that?
THAT'S what's not palatable. It doesn't work.
When you solve the problems of jobs fleeing the country because of shitty policies enacted by democratic presidents? The insurance "crisis" ( which never fucking existed in the first place ) goes away. When you rid the country of millions of people just living off the government ( what the democrats want, because on the dole is under control ) and put them to work you can leave insurance alone. It will regulate itself through competition.
Right now we reward destructive behavior. Have one kid get a check. Have two? Get more. Have three, four, five, six, seven... just keep on getting. There have to be consequences for bad choices and people with your mindset seem to be unwilling to accept this basic fact. Everybody gets the same free healthcare is NOT a consequence.
I've said a lot of times that I respect your opinion, but you're a raving lunatic if you honestly believe that management will have a better chance at controlling costs than the free enterprise market. You've lost touch with reality if you can't see that everyone is NOT entitled to the same level of anything.
That's -- again -- equal outcomes. It's socialism. It's not going to work here, now or ever.
You tell em- bitch.
You said IMAM. HA
-
but you're a raving lunatic if you honestly believe that management will have a better chance at controlling costs than the free enterprise market.
The "free market" doesn't exist and its concepts are wholly inapplicable to health care.
-
The "free market" doesn't exist and its concepts are wholly inapplicable to health care.
You are insane.
-
The "free market" doesn't exist and its concepts are wholly inapplicable to health care.
Disagree.
The second point I understand as debatable.
To deny the existence of the "free market"? I don't understand that at all. Do you deny supply and demand is a thing?
-
Because they contract that lower rate with medical providers. It short changes a lot of doctors. It's why a lot of them don't like taking it. It can be debated on what the procedure should cost - I get that. But it should be at a rate that both the customer can pay and the doctor can make a living from. Believe it or not lots of doctors and hospitals are struggling with the bottom line because of their own costs that they can't do much about.
For people who never get sick and never need a specialist, these things do not matter. They think that as long as everyone has the same health insurance, they will get the same care.
I wonder how many sick people on Medi* have had to start over with a new doctor because their current one stops taking gubmint money? And the good doctors; The ones who are ranked highly, they don't take the Medi*s.
-
To deny the existence of the "free market"? I don't understand that at all. Do you deny supply and demand is a thing?
My point is that we haven't had a truly "free market" since around the turn of the last century. The misty-eyed longing for capitalist markets with unrestrained trade is akin to those longing for the "good old days" in America: it ignores the awful reality for those on the non-capital side of the equation.
Legislation has been used to limit the psychopathic tendencies of the corporate "person" whose only mandate is shareholder profit. It has been used to protect the worker (limiting hours and monitoring working conditions) and competition (antitrust measures.)
There are still basic principles of economics at play, but to insist that "free market" conditions exist in any (legal) American industry is folly.
-
There are still basic principles of economics at play, but to insist that "free market" conditions exist in any (legal) American industry is folly.
Yeah I'm gonna have to disagree with you here.
There are things that limit or are different than how it used to be (mainly tied to safety issues) but a free market does not necessarily mean that it's no holds barred. The same rules and regulations apply to all businesses in a given industry (within this country) and it is up to the leadership of that business to decide how to deploy their assets to best take advantage of a marketplace.
As I have told some of my vendors "I don't care if I do not have a pricing or warranty advantage over my competitors. I care that I am on equal footing with them." After that it is up to me to figure out how to whip their ass in business.
-
My point is that we haven't had a truly "free market" since around the turn of the last century. The misty-eyed longing for capitalist markets with unrestrained trade is akin to those longing for the "good old days" in America: it ignores the awful reality for those on the non-capital side of the equation.
(https://sblazak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/bullshitbutton-pic11.jpg)
The "awful reality"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Legislation has been used to limit the psychopathic tendencies of the corporate "person" whose only mandate is shareholder profit. It has been used to protect the worker (limiting hours and monitoring working conditions) and competition (antitrust measures.)
There are still basic principles of economics at play, but to insist that "free market" conditions exist in any (legal) American industry is folly.
(https://sblazak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/bullshitbutton-pic11.jpg)
Quit being an obtuse jackass and arguing fake points. Nobody's even saying anything remotely like you're trying to argue. And stop being a bleeding heart social justice warrior for a few minutes. Nobody needs that and it's not a good look for you.
-
My point is that we haven't had a truly "free market" since around the turn of the last century. The misty-eyed longing for capitalist markets with unrestrained trade is akin to those longing for the "good old days" in America: it ignores the awful reality for those on the non-capital side of the equation.
Legislation has been used to limit the psychopathic tendencies of the corporate "person" whose only mandate is shareholder profit. It has been used to protect the worker (limiting hours and monitoring working conditions) and competition (antitrust measures.)
There are still basic principles of economics at play, but to insist that "free market" conditions exist in any (legal) American industry is folly.
Wes. Dude.
:facepalm:
-
Yeah I'm gonna have to disagree with you here.
There are things that limit or are different than how it used to be (mainly tied to safety issues) but a free market does not necessarily mean that it's no holds barred.
Would you say that you're free to set any price you want? Advertise in any manner you like?
Competition is limited and even made "fair" through legislation. There is an entire agency dedicated to forcing "fair trade" in this company. Regulation exists in the market place, it is not free.
Quit being an obtuse jackass
...and he's back.
-
Wes. Dude.
:facepalm:
Do you need to borrow one of my
(https://sblazak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/bullshitbutton-pic11.jpg) buttons? They're coming in handy lately.
This has reached Prowler-esqe levels of absurdity. The argument that "there is no free market because there are LAWS" is an absolute joke. It's not even worthy of legitimate rebuttal.
Businesses compete for dollars every single day. That's what drives the American economy. Because they compete for your dollars you're typically getting a better product at a lower price.
It's only when benevolent Uncle Sammy steps in and adds subsidies, price controls and yada, yada, yada that things deteriorate. The government has never understood that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
-
Would you say that you're free to set any price you want? Advertise in any manner you like?
Competition is limited and even made "fair" through legislation. There is an entire agency dedicated to forcing "fair trade" in this company. Regulation exists in the market place, it is not free.
...and he's back.
Sure I am.
I set it too high and I limit my sales and my ability to stay in business.
I set it too low and I limit my ability to make money and stay in business.
Either way I am free to set whatever price I like but as with life those decisions have consequences and sometimes consequences hurt.
Part of being successful in business is having the know how to realize a dumb decision made by not only competitors but also by yourself. If my competitor decides they are going to advertise on a banner pulled behind a plane at Jordan Hare during halftime of the LSU game I am going to point and laugh, but they have that freedom to do that if they think it is going to behoove them.
Is it a TOTALLY free market? No it is not a TOTALLY free market. If it were I could go down the street and hack my competitor to death with a machete. Of course there are some rules and guidelines that govern all industries. Once again the ones in my industry are mainly tied to employee safety and even those have run completely off the rails. I have always been a firm supporter of OSHA however I have seen a monumental change in OSHA over the last ten years. Their surprise on site inspections have become nothing more than fund raising thinly veiled as employee safety.
-
Would you say that you're free to set any price you want? Advertise in any manner you like?
You're fucking A right I can set any price I want. I can price myself out of business, too. Charge too much, charge too little. I'm the one who has to figure out where that balance point is. I've turned down jobs because I couldn't do what they wanted for the price they were able to pay. I've put in quotes for work that I expected would be too high and gotten the job anyway. I've also put in quotes for work that were rejected because they were too high. I've lost business to foreign (Czech and Indian) companies who undercut me because they pay workers pennies on the dollar.
When I owned my furniture stores I negotiated prices for goods and then turned around and marked them up for the consumer. I could charge whatever I could get away with. I bought a truckload of recliners once for $30 each and sold them for nearly 20 times what I paid. Because I fucking could. I bought a half truck of refrigerators once and thought I got a good deal but I barely broke even because I paid too much.
I advertise however I see fit. Can I create an ad and tell outrageous lies? Of course not. I can't claim that the stuff I create can cure cancer or even baldness. I can't make up lies about my competition. But that's hardly a limit. I sold advertising during one of my occupational incarnations. I quit that job in part because I was forced to lie to the customers about the number of subscribers and the publication's reach. I wasn't comfortable with it, but every other publication we competed against was doing the same thing. I ran all the advertising for my furniture stores and said whatever the fuck I wanted in the TV commercials I filmed.
Not to be rude, but you need to unfuck yourself pronto.
Competition is limited and even made "fair" through legislation. There is an entire agency dedicated to forcing "fair trade" in this company. Regulation exists in the market place, it is not free.
...and he's back.
I never left. You ARE being an obtuse braying jackass. I'm doing you a favor by not sugarcoating it.
You're confusing regulation with control. There's a vast difference between rules that regulate free trade and the absence of free trade entirely. Just because the government requires that the advertising you publish be free of outrageous and false claims does not in any way diminish the fact that your business is competing with other similar businesses for a share of the market.
Competition exists and needs to be present in the "healthcare market."
Free healthcare for all = shitty healthcare for everyone.
Learn that lesson, socialist.
-
I submit that you cannot price as you see fit: collusion, price fixing and price gouging ( in 30 or so states) is illegal.
There are limits on advertising.
These things are governed to ensure "fair trade." Fairness is not an objective outcome.
-
I submit that you cannot price as you see fit: collusion, price fixing and price gouging ( in 30 or so states) is illegal.
There are limits on advertising.
These things are governed to ensure "fair trade." Fairness is not an objective outcome.
Man Wes...you are damn near 100% wrong on this.
Typically, I can at the very least understand where you are coming from, but not here. This is just flat out wrong.
-
Man Wes...you are damn near 100% wrong on this.
Each of those sentences in my post is true.
-
Each of those sentences in my post is true.
Horseshit.
-
Each of those sentences in my post is true.
I think your argument that we don't live in pure anarchism, therefore there's no such thing as the basic foundational economic principle that supply and demand play a pivotal role in what consumers are willing to pay for relative to competition, is a straw man.
-
Horseshit.
collusion, price fixing and price gouging ( in 30 or so states) is illegal.
There are limits on advertising.
CFR Title 16, Chapter I, Subchapter A
These things are governed to ensure "fair trade."
§1.8 Nature, authority and use of trade regulation rules.
(a) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Commission is empowered to promulgate trade regulation rules which define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. Such rules may include requirements prescribed for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices. A violation of a rule shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of section 5(a)(1) of that Act, unless the Commission otherwise expressly provides in its rule. However, the respondent in an adjudicative proceeding may show that his conduct does not violate the rule or assert any other defense to which he is legally entitled.
Id.
Fairness is not an objective outcome.
Fair:
b (1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due a fair share
www.m-w.com
-
I think your argument that we don't live in pure anarchism, therefore there's no such thing as the basic foundational economic principle that supply and demand play a pivotal role in what consumers are willing to pay for relative to competition, is a straw man.
To expound on this, I think the mistake you're making is that regulation and free market are not mutually exclusive principles. They're competing principles, but not it's not exclusively one or the other.
-
I think your argument that we don't live in pure anarchism, therefore there's no such thing as the basic foundational economic principle that supply and demand play a pivotal role in what consumers are willing to pay for relative to competition, is a straw man.
Fair. We've gotten a little sidetracked on this argument.
I concede the the fundamentals of economics still apply (supply, demand, etc), but that any illusion that the free marketplace still exists is faulty. As such, if we're already in a managed market, then I find objection to further managing of the marketplace to be specious.
-
To expound on this, I think the mistake you're making is that regulation and free market are not mutually exclusive principles. They're competing principles, but not it's not exclusively one or the other.
I explicitly stated this very point earlier. It's not a binary choice, but rather a continuum.
-
Fair. We've gotten a little sidetracked on this argument.
I concede the the fundamentals of economics still apply (supply, demand, etc), but that any illusion that the free marketplace still exists is faulty. As such, if we're already in a managed market, then I find objection to further managing of the marketplace to be specious.
Horseshit.
-
Horseshit.
Love it when you play the classics.
-
Fair. We've gotten a little sidetracked on this argument.
I concede the the fundamentals of economics still apply (supply, demand, etc), but that any illusion that the free marketplace still exists is faulty. As such, if we're already in a managed market, then I find objection to further managing of the marketplace to be specious.
We currently have a government and that government regulates, and therefore in the current government we're in, we do not operate under pure unregulated free market. This is true, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. There are those that would argue we should operate in an unregulated market. There are many more that think we should at least nudge closer to that side of the spectrum, for sure.
I think we're hung up on semantics, because none of this negates the concept of a "free market" existing or disproves its purpose or power.
-
There are those that would argue we should operate in an unregulated market.
If I sniffed this argument and chased the bunny erroneously, then I apologize for getting us off track.
-
If I sniffed this argument and chased the bunny erroneously, then I apologize for getting us off track.
I'm sure plenty here are arguing that, and I myself am certainly among those that think shifting us further to that side of the spectrum would be beneficial.
Again, I think what hung everyone up is saying the principle of a "free market" doesn't exist just because we don't currently live in a state of economic anarchy.
-
We currently have a government and that government regulates, and therefore in the current government we're in, we do not operate under pure unregulated free market. This is true, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. There are those that would argue we should operate in an unregulated market. There are many more that think we should at least nudge closer to that side of the spectrum, for sure.
I think we're hung up on semantics, because none of this negates the concept of a "free market" existing or disproves its purpose or power.
So many many words when a simple "horseshit" would have done.
That said, however, this is exactly what the obtuse jackassity was attempting to obscure. Nobody said "free market" meant total melee.
Spirit of competition, principles of free enterprise, basics of capitalism -- all at play, all should be at play. That's all anybody was trying to say before somebody semanticized the whole thing to death.
Where I disagree with wes completely and entirely is that the principles of the free market SHOULD and DO apply to healthcare.
People should have a choice in terms of what insurance options they take, what doctors they visit, what preventative care measures they follow, what prescriptions they purchase, etc. The best way to drive those costs down and improve the level of service/care is to apply the basic principles of competition. If you're a doctor and want to make more? Be the best motherfucker out there. People will pay.
When all that is government (mis)managed the only result is higher costs, lowered quality and restricted access.
That needs to stop.
-
So many many words when a simple "horseshit" would have done.
Stop doing this. It adds nothing constructive whatsoever to the conversation. The rest of your post, absent that line, did.
-
Is it a TOTALLY free market? No it is not a TOTALLY free market. If it were I could go down the street and hack my competitor to death with a machete.
I'm pretty sure in Russia you can do that. This isn't Russia, Is this Russia?
-
Stop doing this. It adds nothing constructive whatsoever to the conversation. The rest of your post, absent that line, did.
It's fun for me. I don't like the seriousness all the time. Why you want to shit on my parade? You'd rather I post a meme or a movie quote? Let me be me. Let me do me. No, that sounds nasty.
First amendment!
-
I'm pretty sure in Russia you can do that. This isn't Russia, Is this Russia?
Prowler said it was.
-
Stop doing this. It adds nothing constructive whatsoever to the conversation. The rest of your post, absent that line, did.
Whore shit!
-
I submit that you cannot price as you see fit: collusion, price fixing and price gouging ( in 30 or so states) is illegal.
I will submit that this happens all the time. I only have 2 options on Internet Providers. Well 3 if you count that fact that I could choose to do with out. Only have 3 options on cable companies. It's amazing that no matter who I choose the price runs about the same for said services. IMO that is because the market dictates not necessarily because of collusion. If Comcast drops their price on internet service the rest of the companies will follow with their own rewards otherwise they will lose out in the business.
Price Gouging is usually done in times of extreme need (ie Hurricanes, Natural Disasters) and should be illegal, are you saying it shouldn't be? However could you not say that a Gun purchased in 1850 for a nickel and sold on ebay for $12,000 is not also price gouging? I would call that strictly supply and demand. I don't get your argument.
I will also submit that what I do on the side is 100% "free market" I choose to price my websites whatever I want to. I can also choose not to take a job or not.
I honestly don't get what you are arguing Wes because on one side you want more Government involvement for Healthcare but then you say there is no "free market" due to Government Regulation?!?
-
I honestly don't get what you are arguing Wes because on one side you want more Government involvement for Healthcare but then you say there is no "free market" due to Government Regulation?!?
I don't think he's lamenting that there's no free market. It sounds to me like he's saying the concept itself is preposterous.
-
I don't think he's lamenting that there's no free market. It sounds to me like he's saying the concept itself is preposterous.
I think you are right however I don't understand what the goal is of that argument.
Also, what is the deal with your profile picture. Is Asia making a comeback and that's the new tour poster?
-
I think your argument that we don't live in pure anarchism, therefore there's no such thing as the basic foundational economic principle that supply and demand play a pivotal role in what consumers are willing to pay for relative to competition, is a straw man.
Was trying to find these words. You found them first. Well put.
Free market and capitalism is not anarchy. And it's not what anyone on here is advocating.
-
I think you are right however I don't understand what the goal is of that argument.
Also, what is the deal with your profile picture. Is Asia making a comeback and that's the new tour poster?
Real story - I THINK I read where their lead singer guy died last week.
-
I think you are right however I don't understand what the goal is of that argument.
Me neither. That's what I've been trying to understand since he brought it up.
Also, what is the deal with your profile picture. Is Asia making a comeback and that's the new tour poster?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Frida_Kahlo_(self_portrait).jpg)
(http://cdn1.thecomeback.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/1385950973000-12-01-2013-Anthony-Davis1.jpg)
-
Me neither. That's what I've been trying to understand since he brought it up.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Frida_Kahlo_(self_portrait).jpg)
(http://cdn1.thecomeback.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/1385950973000-12-01-2013-Anthony-Davis1.jpg)
Doesn't look like a member of Asia.
-
Doesn't look like a member of Asia.
It was the heat of the moment.
-
I think you are right however I don't understand what the goal is of that argument.
Also, what is the deal with your profile picture. Is Asia making a comeback and that's the new tour poster?
He said his goal was free healthcare for everybody.
But while he was looking up words like "specious" he skipped over the meaning of easier ones like "free."
He says there's no free market. Wrong. But whatever.
There is no such thing as free healthcare either. Somebody pays. Be altruistic with somebody else's wallet.
-
It was the heat of the moment.
Damnit man. That was my line.
-
He said his goal was free healthcare for everybody.
But while he was looking up words like "specious" he skipped over the meaning of easier ones like "free."
He says there's no free market. Wrong. But whatever.
There is no such thing as free healthcare either. Somebody pays. Be altruistic with somebody else's wallet.
Agree.
And I think we can all agree that by free market none of us mean unadulterated unchecked anarchy. Not sure why anyone thought that. That's not the definition of a free market economy within the bounds of our constitution in this country.
-
Damnit man. That was my line.
I know. It showed in your eyes.
-
There is no such thing as free healthcare either. Somebody pays. Be altruistic with somebody else's wallet.
THIS is more pertinent than an argument about whether or not there "is" a free market.
-
I don't think he's lamenting that there's no free market. It sounds to me like he's saying the concept itself is preposterous.
Are you accusing chestnuts of being lazy?
-
THIS is more pertinent than an argument about whether or not there "is" a free market.
That's sorta what I was trying to say for like 11 of the 13 pages here. The other part was just yelling horseshit to amuse myself.
-
That's sorta what I was trying to say for like 11 of the 13 pages here. The other part was just yelling horseshit to amuse myself.
You did say that about 11 pages ago.
-
Speaking of Health Care...Trump is going to try to terminate the Meals on Wheels programs.
-
Speaking of Health Care...Trump is going to try to terminate the Meals on Wheels programs.
Good. I like meals that sit still.
-
Speaking of Health Care...Trump is going to try to terminate the Meals on Wheels programs.
Will the part of that program that is 97% private funded still be ok? Or will Trump stop people from donating to it?
-
Will the part of that program that is 97% private funded still be ok? Or will Trump stop people from donating to it?
I'm sure people will still be able to donate to it, they'd just have to make up for the 3-4% of the Federal funding that would be cut out if it goes through.
-
I'm sure people will still be able to donate to it, they'd just have to make up for the 3-4% of the Federal funding that would be cut out if it goes through.
So then he's not terminating it?
-
No, private funding will pick up the slack. My wife has been delivering for Meals on Wheels for years. Our Sunday School class contributes as do many others I know of. I'll throw an extra $10 in the plate. It won't be affected in the least.
-
So then he's not terminating it?
Terminating...cutting 3%....aren't you splitting hairs here?
-
So then he's not terminating it?
He's just cutting the fat out of the plate. Only lean meat now.
-
Terminating...cutting 3%....aren't you splitting hairs here?
Well, Prowler said Trump was trying to terminate it. I'm trying to figure out why he said that.
-
Well, Prowler said Trump was trying to terminate it. I'm trying to figure out why he said that.
I know you were told there would be no math, but let me lay it out for you. Termination vs. 3% cut. There's only a miniscule 97% difference between the two. Why are you questioning this logic? Trump BAAAAAD!
-
Well, Prowler said Trump was trying to terminate it. I'm trying to figure out why he said that.
Federally terminate.
-
He's just cutting the fat out of the plate. Only lean meat now.
No tread on the tires....More of a racing slick look.
-
Federally terminate.
Or cut the very small federal portion. No terminate of the program. Quit lying. Quit being a useful idiot for that side.
-
Well, Prowler said Trump was trying to terminate it. I'm trying to figure out why he said that.
Because he's a willing foot soldier of the Alinsky left. That's why.
-
Where I disagree with wes completely and entirely is that the principles of the free market SHOULD and DO apply to healthcare.
Information asymmetry: Despite big-pharma's attempts to market directly to the patient, the doctor still holds all the information and we're left to rely upon them in making decisions...or head over to WebMD to make all your health decisions.
Lack of choice for emergent conditions: You can't price-shop open heart surgery when you need it immediately.
Inelasticity of demand for life-saving drugs: If your doc says your kid needs chemo, you probably aren't holding up treatment while you shop to find the best price. You're buying chemo drugs.
Lack of choice to even enter the market place: Everyone will at some point need service, and they are rarely allowed the luxury of choosing when.
-
Federally terminate.
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/155/834/plz-stop-post.jpg)
-
I will submit that this happens all the time. I only have 2 options on Internet Providers. Well 3 if you count that fact that I could choose to do with out. Only have 3 options on cable companies. It's amazing that no matter who I choose the price runs about the same for said services. IMO that is because the market dictates not necessarily because of collusion. If Comcast drops their price on internet service the rest of the companies will follow with their own rewards otherwise they will lose out in the business.
It's moreso the tight regulation by the FCC than market competition. Utilities are not necessarily operating in a free market.
Price Gouging is usually done in times of extreme need (ie Hurricanes, Natural Disasters) and should be illegal, are you saying it shouldn't be?
Not at all. I'm just dispelling this myth that anyone is free to set their product/service pricing at any point they wish. These are simple counterpoints to knock down that fallacy.
I will also submit that what I do on the side is 100% "free market" I choose to price my websites whatever I want to. I can also choose not to take a job or not.
Generally, yes. But to ignore that you operate in a larger market that is subject to the FTC's regulations (among others), even if they don't touch you (because you aren't, presumably, engaging in any prohibited activities) is disingenuous. It's like suggesting that, just because you're a cautious driver who pegs it at 55 (no Hagar) on the interstate, you can drive any speed you want.
I honestly don't get what you are arguing Wes because on one side you want more Government involvement for Healthcare but then you say there is no "free market" due to Government Regulation?!?
I'm merely suggesting that the "free market" isn't as free as some seem to think.
-
Information asymmetry: Despite big-pharma's attempts to market directly to the patient, the doctor still holds all the information and we're left to rely upon them in making decisions...or head over to WebMD to make all your health decisions.
Lack of choice for emergent conditions: You can't price-shop open heart surgery when you need it immediately.
Inelasticity of demand for life-saving drugs: If your doc says your kid needs chemo, you probably aren't holding up treatment while you shop to find the best price. You're buying chemo drugs.
Lack of choice to even enter the market place: Everyone will at some point need service, and they are rarely allowed the luxury of choosing when.
I think people would argue that those restrictions on the free market are the type of things a "good" healthcare bill would try to change.
-
: If your doc says your kid needs chemo, you probably aren't holding up treatment while you shop to find the best price. You're buying chemo drugs
Because there is only one chemo drug...
-
I think people would argue that those restrictions on the free market are the type of things a "good" healthcare bill would try to change.
I agree that the conditions can be managed and enhanced through regulation (ie - a bill).
-
Because there is only one chemo drug...
I know personally what those fuckers cost on a monthly basis.
I also know their efficacy.
You buy them...you stroke the check and you don't even think to ask if you can price shop down at the Costco.
-
I know personally what those fuckers cost on a monthly basis.
I also know their efficacy.
You buy them...you stroke the check and you don't even think to ask if you can price shop down at the Costco.
Well. To be honest, you didn't shop for price, but for the one that has been the most successful. And that is exactly how finding the best doctor works.
-
I agree that the conditions can be managed and enhanced through regulation (ie - a bill).
Or de-regulation.
-
Well. To be honest, you didn't shop for price, but for the one that has been the most successful. And that is exactly how finding the best doctor works.
No...I "shopped" for the one the doc told me would work.
Information asymmetry.
-
Or de-regulation.
Don't drag me back there.
-
No...I "shopped" for the one the doc told me would work.
Information asymmetry.
And you trusted that doc because you had a choice to choose the best doc. And that doc by proxy chose the best drug for the job.
With your idea of socialism, you get NO choice.
-
And you trusted that doc because you had a choice to choose the best doc. And that doc by proxy chose the best drug for the job.
Did he, though?
Or did he steer me toward a drug whose manufacturer will send him to Hawaii in December?
I don't know.
-
And you trusted that doc because you had a choice to choose the best doc. And that doc by proxy chose the best drug for the job.
With your idea of socialism, you get NO choice.
That and under the current capitalist system, you are allowed to "ask your doctor if _________ is right for you", let alone research for yourself, which is hardly a tall order in literal matters of life or death.
-
Did he, though?
Or did he steer me toward a drug whose manufacturer will send him to Hawaii in December?
I don't know.
And THAT is an issue with big pharma that I agree needs some reeling in.
-
That and under the current capitalist system, you are allowed to "ask your doctor if _________ is right for you", let alone research for yourself, which is hardly a tall order in literal matters of life or death.
Wrap your head around a cancer diagnosis, listen to the treatment plan, go home and do your research. Got it.
While I'm generally anti-anecdotal evidence, the above does NOT ring true in my experience.
-
And THAT is an issue with big pharma that I agree needs some reeling in.
REGULATIONS!!!
-
Wrap your head around a cancer diagnosis, listen to the treatment plan, go home and do your research. Got it.
While I'm generally anti-anecdotal evidence, the above does NOT ring true in my experience.
Went through it with my mom. You have to get as much information as you can. We did much research and talked to many people.
Unfortunately, today's treatment for cancer is barbaric at best. But its all we have. And if you ask enough people, the ones still alive, you get a concensus on which devil to use.
But it is still a choice. Which doctor, or which drug.
-
Information asymmetry: Despite big-pharma's attempts to market directly to the patient, the doctor still holds all the information and we're left to rely upon them in making decisions...or head over to WebMD to make all your health decisions.
False.
So your doctor says you need to take a statin. Of course you have to rely on the doctor to prescribe controlled medicines. Otherwise addicts are grabbing Oxy over the counter. She recommends Isoflaviner. If you are informed you can ask if there are other options, other brands, etc. My doctor is great about this. She tells me what's wrong and gives me the options that are available - including price and effectiveness.
Or you skip the doctor, go to the googles and determine that you should be taking Burbagerx. It's over the counter. So you go to Walgreens and pick from the various types out there, including the house brand. You've got price options, dosage options and can often even choose whether it's a pill, capsule or liquid.
Having to rely on a doctor to diagnose your condition does not in any way negate the principles of the free market. You should even be able to choose the doctor based on your level of comfort, online ratings, past experience or whatever. Freedom of choice.
Lack of choice for emergent conditions: You can't price-shop open heart surgery when you need it immediately.
False.
In 99.9 percent of the situations you can choose. If you're having issues you've likely already chosen the doctor who does your procedures and followup.
Where this fails is that in some cases you can't control the price because the fucking government and the insurance companies have already interfered.
It's my contention that except in a case where you fall out from a heart attack on vacation and don't have access to your regular physicians you SHOULD have the option to choose which doctor and at what price.
I guess you're not aware that there are currently apps in development (my company is involved in one) that allow you to sort through and select the lowest cost provider for services -- up to and including heart surgery.
So false.
Inelasticity of demand for life-saving drugs: If your doc says your kid needs chemo, you probably aren't holding up treatment while you shop to find the best price. You're buying chemo drugs.
False.
If your kid needs chemo, you most definitely should have the option of finding the best price. And it should be simple to do.
If you want to talk about a real crisis, this is where it exists. People who have insurance and yet because they have no options to make choices end up financially destroyed by the costs of treatment.
When the insurance companies, medical providers and drug companies take everything a person has, it makes a difference whether they take nothing because you have nothing or take everything because you have more. The trauma of losing a loved one is bad enough without coming to the end of that process in a state of financial devastation.
True story. When I had my accident and my first wife was killed, Druid City Hospital in Tuscaloosa filed a judgment against me for her end of life bills while I was STILL in their hospital and in a medically necessary coma. I was responsible for her bills... so...they wanted to make sure they got theirs. It was nearly a year before I could get back to work full time. I recovered physically in about a year, mentally a little longer but it took me more than five years to recover from the financial onslaught unleashed on me by the hospital. I had insurance, I had assets so they went after it with a vengeance.
Lack of choice to even enter the market place: Everyone will at some point need service, and they are rarely allowed the luxury of choosing when.
False.
Other than absolute emergency situations when you're away from your normal providers? You do have choices, you do have options, you can determine who your providers are.
Even still -- my entire point is that you should have MORE choices.
Your argument is apparently that there should be less. Because that's all additional government intrusion and (mis)management is going to get you.
The availability of care, the options you have in regard to what procedures and medications to which you have access and the ability to make choices in regard to your care have all declined drastically since the Imam decided the government should be involved. At the same time, the costs associated with the care and services have risen dramatically -- to the point of being unaffordable for the people who are burdened with paying for the grifters who don't pay. It needs to go.
-
But it is still a choice. Which doctor, or which drug.
I'm not suggesting that today's system is terrible, per se. Only that it can be improved. And that "choice" under this system is limited in most cases, illusory in the rest.
-
Or de-regulation.
Bing-FUCKING-o.
You're not going to get better and more affordable care by inviting more government involvement.
-
Did he, though?
Or did he steer me toward a drug whose manufacturer will send him to Hawaii in December?
I don't know.
Slow that roll boss, for a change I actually have something somewhat informed to add here.
The skirt is a medical liaison in the oncology division for one of the largest pharms in the world and I cannot begin to explain to you how little the greasing of palms happens on that end. There are MASSIVE amounts of regulations that preclude it from happening that dole out not only harsh consequences for the company but also to the medical provider any type of shenanigans like that.
I certainly am not saying that it doesn't happen cause there are always ways to slip a dinner in here and there but by and large it does not because the consequences are way too steep on both sides.
What I do see happen is that different doctors subscribe to different treatment profiles. Some subscribe to the drugs, some subscribe to the chemo and radiation, some subscribe to cell therapy, some subscribe to a combination. It is no different than how people in your own profession will handle a lawsuit. Some are settle a suit cuase your sleepless nights are their sleepless nights, some are gonna go all in till the end, and some are gonna be somewhere in the middle. None of them are necessarily more right or wrong than the other as long as it is what your client is trying to accomplish and what your advice because of experience tell you.
One of the big problems with cancer treatments as you are well aware of is that there is no magic bullet for it at this point. Depending on where it is, when it is caught, and who has it are all variables that make treatment educated guesses at best. Add to this that most of the cancers mutate over time and you have a disease that is infinitely harder to treat much less cure.
-
There are MASSIVE amounts of regulations that preclude it from happening that dole out not only harsh consequences for the company but also to the medical provider any type of shenanigans like that.
Excellent.
What I do see happen is that different doctors subscribe to different treatment profiles. Some subscribe to the drugs, some subscribe to the chemo and radiation, some subscribe to cell therapy, some subscribe to a combination. It is no different than how people in your own profession will handle a lawsuit. Some are settle a suit cuase your sleepless nights are their sleepless nights, some are gonna go all in till the end, and some are gonna be somewhere in the middle. None of them are necessarily more right or wrong than the other as long as it is what your client is trying to accomplish and what your advice because of experience tell you.
One of the big problems with cancer treatments as you are well aware of is that there is no magic bullet for it at this point. Depending on where it is, when it is caught, and who has it are all variables that make treatment educated guesses at best. Add to this that most of the cancers mutate over time and you have a disease that is infinitely harder to treat much less cure.
Agree with all of this.
-
REGULATIONS!!!
You mistake me. I said earlier that while I tend to favor the "free market" side of the spectrum to the "regulation" side of the spectrum, first of all I'm the one saying we do and should operate in shades of gray, and more specifically I said that these types of issues with the pharmaceutical companies is where I'd start.
-
You mistake me. I said earlier that while I tend to favor the "free market" side of the spectrum to the "regulation" side of the spectrum, first of all I'm the one saying we do and should operate in shades of gray, and more specifically I said that these types of issues with the pharmaceutical companies is where I'd start.
Which is fine to a point.
Note also that this is an entirely different discussion than the whole "free health car for all" dead carcass.
-
Or de-regulation.
And this is no "Trump Worship" point by any means, but isn't one of his staple issues to get drug prices DOWN? Via negotiation? Meaning all drugs and treatment used on people.
We apparently have some horrible deals in place and the way they are bidded on, and just LEFT to remain in place. Right now in that climate everyone BUT the consumer is benefitting so nothing has changed.
He's right in that these kinds of drugs whether it be a head drug or a heart drug or a cancer drug - are much cheaper in other places. The same drugs from the same companies. Sorry but thats gotta stop. That would be a HUGE first step in the right direction.
-
No...I "shopped" for the one the doc told me would work.
Information asymmetry.
And thats a "Big Pharma - Doctor - FDA" triangle that needs to be unwoven as well. Too much cahoots.
-
Which is fine to a point.
Note also that this is an entirely different discussion than the whole "free health car for all" dead carcass.
Thats the macro solution to a LOT of micro problems....the one chad pointed out being one of them. You fix a lot of these things, and a solution of single payer may not be talked about as much. Right now, people are desperate. Single Payer just throws more money at a system that has flaws and needs an organic fix at the root level. We fix those things, there isn't as much incentive to demand that free care via single payer.
-
Federally terminate.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/us/meals-on-wheels-donations-compassionate/
Meals on Wheels' donations, volunteer sign-ups soar after Trump eyes cuts
I can't think of a much better argument for privatisation and the power of the free market than Meals on Wheels making exponentially more in private donations and overhead than the 3% they MIGHT lose from the government.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/us/meals-on-wheels-donations-compassionate/
I can't think of a much better argument for privatisation and the power of the free market than Meals on Wheels making exponentially more in private donations and overhead than the 3% they MIGHT lose from the government.
So the federal govt involvement in it is now gone. But the program will somehow live on. And not only survive but apparently grow and thrive. A Win for the taxpayers and limited govt everywhere on this one. I don't see one loser in that end game.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/us/meals-on-wheels-donations-compassionate/
I can't think of a much better argument for privatisation and the power of the free market than Meals on Wheels making exponentially more in private donations and overhead than the 3% they MIGHT lose from the government.
Drop a mic. Or serve an ass platter. Cmon. You deserve it.
-
So the federal govt involvement in it is now gone. But the program will somehow live on. And not only survive but apparently grow and thrive. A Win for the taxpayers and limited govt everywhere on this one. I don't see one loser in that end game.
But. But. But, how can I feel good about my tax money if it's not helping po people!