[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

"Him Too" - BlueHeronDruid - Nov 21, 2017 - 11:15pm
 
Prog Rockers Anonymous - Steely_D - Nov 21, 2017 - 10:38pm
 
Celebrity Deaths - Alexandra - Nov 21, 2017 - 9:26pm
 
Things You Thought Today - FourFortyEight - Nov 21, 2017 - 8:44pm
 
Why I ♥ the internets - FourFortyEight - Nov 21, 2017 - 8:40pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - olivertwist - Nov 21, 2017 - 6:35pm
 
Best Last Words - kcar - Nov 21, 2017 - 4:42pm
 
RPeep News You Should Know - BlueHeronDruid - Nov 21, 2017 - 4:22pm
 
Sixth Sense and a Thankyou! - sifteruk - Nov 21, 2017 - 4:16pm
 
Newfoundland, Labrador, and Maritime Provinces - haresfur - Nov 21, 2017 - 3:57pm
 
Anti-War - haresfur - Nov 21, 2017 - 3:23pm
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - skyguy - Nov 21, 2017 - 3:13pm
 
Signs o' the Apocalypse in the news... - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 21, 2017 - 3:10pm
 
What are you listening to now? - miamizsun - Nov 21, 2017 - 12:42pm
 
I'm Thankful For.. - miamizsun - Nov 21, 2017 - 12:38pm
 
♥ ♥ ♥ Vote For Pie ♥ ♥ ♥ - miamizsun - Nov 21, 2017 - 12:28pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Nov 21, 2017 - 11:30am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - NeilBlanchard - Nov 21, 2017 - 10:54am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 21, 2017 - 10:33am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 21, 2017 - 9:54am
 
Name My Band - Antigone - Nov 21, 2017 - 8:05am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Nov 21, 2017 - 8:05am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Nov 21, 2017 - 7:54am
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Nov 21, 2017 - 7:53am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - olivertwist - Nov 21, 2017 - 7:11am
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Nov 21, 2017 - 6:33am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Nov 21, 2017 - 6:19am
 
Beer - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 21, 2017 - 5:57am
 
Helpful emergency signs - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 21, 2017 - 5:56am
 
RadioParadise FAQ List Submission - raid - Nov 21, 2017 - 5:01am
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - Nov 20, 2017 - 9:53pm
 
John Mayer Has it goen on for show - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 20, 2017 - 7:51pm
 
The Geek Thread - haresfur - Nov 20, 2017 - 6:44pm
 
Health Care - kurtster - Nov 20, 2017 - 4:49pm
 
Addiction: I would appreciate your thoughts... - FourFortyEight - Nov 20, 2017 - 3:52pm
 
druid labs web cam and the cooking fools - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 20, 2017 - 3:49pm
 
What makes you smile? - miamizsun - Nov 20, 2017 - 3:05pm
 
• • • What Makes You Happy? • • •  - haresfur - Nov 20, 2017 - 2:04pm
 
Bit Rate Resolution in BlueSound? - Creggor - Nov 20, 2017 - 1:51pm
 
Recipes Shared at Radio Paradise - haresfur - Nov 20, 2017 - 12:38pm
 
Make Jrzy Laugh - sunybuny - Nov 20, 2017 - 12:38pm
 
OUR CATS!! - JrzyTmata - Nov 20, 2017 - 12:27pm
 
Learned Lessons - haresfur - Nov 20, 2017 - 12:26pm
 
Just Wrong - Red_Dragon - Nov 20, 2017 - 10:03am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - Proclivities - Nov 20, 2017 - 10:01am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - lily34 - Nov 20, 2017 - 9:42am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 20, 2017 - 9:24am
 
Democratic Party - Steely_D - Nov 20, 2017 - 8:48am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Nov 20, 2017 - 8:20am
 
Happy Thanksgiving! - miamizsun - Nov 20, 2017 - 7:53am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Nov 20, 2017 - 7:38am
 
Sex - oldviolin - Nov 20, 2017 - 7:11am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Nov 20, 2017 - 7:02am
 
Visual Reference & Creative Catalysts - Proclivities - Nov 20, 2017 - 7:00am
 
Let's make some Music - oldviolin - Nov 20, 2017 - 6:58am
 
Comics! - Antigone - Nov 20, 2017 - 5:34am
 
Beta player only playing to left channel? - CaffeineIsMyDrug - Nov 19, 2017 - 5:19pm
 
The Image Post - Red_Dragon - Nov 19, 2017 - 4:24pm
 
Trump - hayduke2 - Nov 19, 2017 - 9:26am
 
Revelation,Armageddon, the end of the world (we can stop ... - SeriousLee - Nov 19, 2017 - 9:07am
 
Stone Temple Pilots - SeriousLee - Nov 19, 2017 - 7:23am
 
Celebrity News - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 18, 2017 - 9:14pm
 
NETFLIX - Alexandra - Nov 18, 2017 - 7:20pm
 
Sunrise, Sunset - Coaxial - Nov 18, 2017 - 7:05pm
 
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader - R_P - Nov 18, 2017 - 11:37am
 
Questions. - SeriousLee - Nov 18, 2017 - 3:28am
 
RadioParadise HD: API/webservice for integration in XBMC? - donfulano - Nov 17, 2017 - 5:53pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 17, 2017 - 1:18pm
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Nov 17, 2017 - 12:47pm
 
Infinite cat - Prodigal_SOB - Nov 17, 2017 - 10:06am
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - Nov 17, 2017 - 9:38am
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - islander - Nov 17, 2017 - 7:33am
 
Media Bias - aflanigan - Nov 17, 2017 - 7:13am
 
SHOUT OUTS ACROSS THE WORLD - miamizsun - Nov 17, 2017 - 7:10am
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - miamizsun - Nov 17, 2017 - 6:51am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » OBAMACARE Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64  Next
Post to this Topic
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Aug 6, 2017 - 4:46pm

 MrsHobieJoe wrote:

This isn't correct by the way. The justice system in the uk and the NHS are independent of each other. There are non NHS providers in the uk too btw (although many people only access care via the NHS). It's not a medical point, it's that the court looks after the interest of the child first and effectively takes precedence over the parents.

I can understand that many people would find that the higher standing of the court in this case difficult and that's the point you should be taking up, not the healthcare. Personally I've always found it a bit high handed for the courts to prevent people accessing last resort care for children overseas (even though the courts usually make a rational decision and always place the interests of the kid first) and I'd lean towards more latitude in situations like this.  

 
Yes, I did lump the justice system and the NHS together.  

Please correct me if I'm wrong about the following.  The UK justice system is forced to take the position it has because the UK signed onto the UN treaty in question, Convention on the Rights of the Child.  In that capacity it forces the NHS to defer to the courts over the parents.  The court prohibited any medical treatment or second opinion outside the NHS.  Only after a struggle in court was the doctor from the US with the experimental treatment given access to CG, but only after it was decidedly too late to consider that alternative as too much time had passed to even consider it viable anymore.  The window of opportunity had closed because of the time spent in court fighting for access to other medical care.

If true it paints the UK NHS as a closed system, at least for children to date, and medical care outside of the NHS but within the UK itself is unaccessable.  That would in essence make it a sole payer, again for at least children, so far.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Aug 5, 2017 - 8:50pm

 MrsHobieJoe wrote:

This isn't correct by the way. The justice system in the uk and the NHS are independent of each other. There are non NHS providers in the uk too btw (although many people only access care via the NHS). It's not a medical point, it's that the court looks after the interest of the child first and effectively takes precedence over the parents.

I can understand that many people would find that the higher standing of the court in this case difficult and that's the point you should be taking up, not the healthcare. Personally I've always found it a bit high handed for the courts to prevent people accessing last resort care for children overseas (even though the courts usually make a rational decision and always place the interests of the kid first) and I'd lean towards more latitude in situations like this.  

 
Thank you.
MrsHobieJoe
Make tea, not war.
MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Aug 5, 2017 - 8:48pm

 kurtster wrote:

What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself.  It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood.  It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US.  It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country.  That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality.  That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority.  The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably.  

You have long argued with me about how the UN cannot take any sovereignty away from the USA.  And I have argued that they can and will given the opportunity.  This is a case where they would accomplish that and take away not only our sovereignty but also take away the rights of a parent over their minor children.  A bureaucrat will have more power over a child than their parent because of the goals of the UN and those who seek a single payer system in the USA.

 
This isn't correct by the way. The justice system in the uk and the NHS are independent of each other. There are non NHS providers in the uk too btw (although many people only access care via the NHS). It's not a medical point, it's that the court looks after the interest of the child first and effectively takes precedence over the parents.

I can understand that many people would find that the higher standing of the court in this case difficult and that's the point you should be taking up, not the healthcare. Personally I've always found it a bit high handed for the courts to prevent people accessing last resort care for children overseas (even though the courts usually make a rational decision and always place the interests of the kid first) and I'd lean towards more latitude in situations like this.  
maryte
It's a mystery to me
maryte Avatar

Location: Blinding You With Library Science!
Gender: Female
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Jul 31, 2017 - 12:10pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


 

{#Roflol}
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Jul 31, 2017 - 8:37am


ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 9:02pm

 kurtster wrote:
What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself.  It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood.  It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US.  It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country.  That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality.  That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority.  The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably.  

You have long argued with me about how the UN cannot take any sovereignty away from the USA.  And I have argued that they can and will given the opportunity.  This is a case where they would accomplish that and take away not only our sovereignty but also take away the rights of a parent over their minor children.  A bureaucrat will have more power over a child than their parent because of the goals of the UN and those who seek a single payer system in the USA.
 
Your argument has no concern for the welfare of the child. This sort of case happens, maybe not frequently, but decisions like these are made every day. By insurance, by family, by doctors: keep on life support, pull the plug, DNR, Christian Science... the same circumstances might be handled differently by different families and medical facilities but you cannot say the decision is strictly due to some uncaring system. This one has always been about what's best for the patient.
 
But really the outrage is that you're so afraid this rare scenario might happen that you're willing to let millions suffer the fate of having to skip that checkup, ignore those chest pains, and wind up in the ER without any way to pay.
BlueHeronDruid

BlueHeronDruid Avatar



Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 8:43pm

 kurtster wrote:

What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself.  It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood.  It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US.  It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country.  That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality.  That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority.  The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably.  

This is more about the courts than the Health Service. You might enjoy this read.

 "The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and the consultant instructed by the parents all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit.1" Also, "The clinician in the US who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred."
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 5:00pm

 steeler wrote:

The opposition to a single-payer system (nationalized medicine) is mired in (1) those who benefit from a system that distinguishes between winners and losers, and want to continue so benefitting, and (2) those who have been duped, mostly by those in category No. 1, into believing that they will not just be inconvenienced by such a system, but adversely impacted by it, and/or that it somehow runs contrary to fundamental American values/ principles.

Take the very recent, tragic case of Charlie Gard, which has been cited by those against a single-payer system as a cautionary tale of what could happen to each of us if we were to be imprisoned by a single-payer system.  First of all, even if I were buying into all that those citing the Gard case were stating about that case and a single—payer system — which I am not — it would still constitute a case occurring on the margins — the far margins, at that. But here is the point I want to make about that: there are many, many individuals — children and adults — in the U.S. now, under our current system, who cannot get to the "first- class" medical providers who may have a remedy for their medical condition.  It happens every day.

Not everyone can be treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins, to name a few.  There are innumerable stories of folk who were told by their regular providers that there was nothing that could be done for them unless they could get into some of the clinical trials going on at the more elite institutions; many times, one does not even get that latter advice, just the former.  There are those who always can gain access to the elite care and there are those who, through a lot of diligence and some luck, manage to do so.  Those are the winners.  They are not the majority — not even close. So, this notion that under our present system, anyone can choose which medical providers he or she wants to treat them is a canard, a hollow "right."             

A system in which one has to be his or her own strong advocate, or have someone who can do so for them, to get the care that is needed is one that is seriously flawed. Yet we hear that all the time — you have to advocate to get the care you need . What an indictment!  A system that awards winners, and places the losers in a game of health care roulette, is inherently unfair.                   

*rant off* 

 
What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself.  It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood.  It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US.  It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country.  That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality.  That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority.  The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably.  

You have long argued with me about how the UN cannot take any sovereignty away from the USA.  And I have argued that they can and will given the opportunity.  This is a case where they would accomplish that and take away not only our sovereignty but also take away the rights of a parent over their minor children.  A bureaucrat will have more power over a child than their parent because of the goals of the UN and those who seek a single payer system in the USA.


steeler
About three bricks shy of a load
steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 12:56pm

 black321 wrote:
 

  


I'm not clear on your last point, as i think with any system, the individual has to be their strongest advocate...but too the point of using these extreme outlier events in single payer systems as a reason to support a system that excludes tens of millions from basic care is absurd. 

the fact is, we all need and will eventually receive some form of healthcare.  So lets get everyone in the pool participating, and leave only the financing part up to the government.  Stripping out all the middle men in the payment/claims processing will recapture profits and create efficiencies, and having everyone in the pool will better diversify risk and create more stability over what will need to be paid. 

 

Yes, the fact that millions are without basic care is the biggest indictment, and, I agree, does put the lie to those who cite to outlier cases as reason for not instituting a single-payer system.  I was talking about people who are in the system and that, even among those, there are winners and losers.  What I mean by the comment regarding being an advocate is that, in my view, health care should not follow a capitalist model.  That someone is not as adept at maneuvering through the system should not relegate them to a lesser standard of care.  Health care should not be based on merit.  That is my point.        




black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 12:28pm

 steeler wrote:

The opposition to a single-payer system (nationalized medicine) is mired in (1) those who benefit from a system that distinguishes between winners and losers, and want to continue so benefitting, and (2) those who have been duped, mostly by those in category No. 1, into believing that they will not just be inconvenienced by such a system, but adversely impacted by it, and/or that it somehow runs contrary to fundamental American values/ principles.

Take the very recent, tragic case of Charlie Gard, which has been cited by those against a single-payer system as a cautionary tale of what could happen to each of us if we were to be imprisoned by a single-payer system.  First of all, even if I were buying into all that those citing the Gard case were stating about that case and a single—payer system — which I am not — it would still constitute a case occurring on the margins — the far margins, at that. But here is the point I want to make about that: there are many, many individuals — children and adults — in the U.S. now, under our current system, who cannot get to the "first- class" medical providers who may have a remedy for their medical condition.  It happens every day.

Not everyone can be treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins, to name a few.  There are innumerable stories of folk who were told by their regular providers that there was nothing that could be done for them unless they could get into some of the clinical trials going on at the more elite institutions; many times, one does not even get that latter advice, just the former.  There are those who always can gain access to the elite care and there are those who, through a lot of diligence and some luck, manage to do so.  Those are the winners.  They are not the majority — not even close. So, this notion that under our present system, anyone can choose which medical providers he or she wants to treat them is a canard, a hollow "right."             

A system in which one has to be his or her own strong advocate, or have someone who can do so for them, to get the care that is needed is one that is seriously flawed. Yet we hear that all the time — you have to advocate to get the care you need .  A system that awards winners, and places the losers in a game of health care roulette, is inherently unfair.                   

*rant off* 

  


I'm not clear on your last point, as i think with any system, the individual has to be their strongest advocate...but too the point of using these extreme outlier events in single payer systems as a reason to support a system that excludes tens of millions from basic care is absurd. 

the fact is, we all need and will eventually receive some form of healthcare.  So lets get everyone in the pool participating, and leave only the financing part up to the government.  Stripping out all the middle men in the payment/claims processing will recapture profits and create efficiencies, and having everyone in the pool will better diversify risk and create more stability over what will need to be paid. 

steeler
About three bricks shy of a load
steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 11:54am

The opposition to a single-payer system (nationalized medicine) is mired in (1) those who benefit from a system that distinguishes between winners and losers, and want to continue so benefitting, and (2) those who have been duped, mostly by those in category No. 1, into believing that they will not just be inconvenienced by such a system, but adversely impacted by it, and/or that it somehow runs contrary to fundamental American values/ principles.

Take the very recent, tragic case of Charlie Gard, which has been cited by those against a single-payer system as a cautionary tale of what could happen to each of us if we were to be imprisoned by a single-payer system.  First of all, even if I were buying into all that those citing the Gard case were stating about that case and a single—payer system — which I am not — it would still constitute a case occurring on the margins — the far margins, at that. But here is the point I want to make about that: there are many, many individuals — children and adults — in the U.S. now, under our current system, who cannot get to the "first- class" medical providers who may have a remedy for their medical condition.  It happens every day.

Not everyone can be treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins, to name a few.  There are innumerable stories of folk who were told by their regular providers that there was nothing that could be done for them unless they could get into some of the clinical trials going on at the more elite institutions; many times, one does not even get that latter advice, just the former.  There are those who always can gain access to the elite care and there are those who, through a lot of diligence and some luck, manage to do so.  Those are the winners.  They are not the majority — not even close. So, this notion that under our present system, anyone can choose which medical providers he or she wants to treat them is a canard, a hollow "right."             

A system in which one has to be his or her own strong advocate, or have someone who can do so for them, to get the care that is needed is one that is seriously flawed. Yet we hear that all the time — you have to advocate to get the care you need . What an indictment!  A system that awards winners, and places the losers in a game of health care roulette, is inherently unfair.                   

*rant off* 

 

.     




maryte
It's a mystery to me
maryte Avatar

Location: Blinding You With Library Science!
Gender: Female
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 6:59am

 meower wrote:
We had an M&M (morbidity and mortality) conference yesterday on a 15 year old who suicided in May. In then end, the child's access to mental health care (denial by her insurance company for the service that she really needed) was seen as a primary causal factor.  It was the epitome of the need for a single payer system. It's simply Not OK that a child died of suicide due to a lack of access to needed support.

 
I agree with you but, unfortunately, far too many people consider that Someone Else's Problem and not worth paying for.  Hell, I generally don't like people, but even I recognize the value (on so very many levels) of living in a cooperative society.
meower

meower Avatar

Location: i believe, i believe, it's silly, but I believe
Gender: Female
Zodiac: Gemini


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 6:34am

We had an M&M (morbidity and mortality) conference yesterday on a 15 year old who suicided in May. In then end, the child's access to mental health care (denial by her insurance company for the service that she really needed) was seen as a primary causal factor.  It was the epitome of the need for a single payer system. It's simply Not OK that a child died of suicide due to a lack of access to needed support.
black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 6:27am

 miamizsun wrote:
good news and bad news

the bad news is that the affordable care act is anything but (force and coercion = horrible economic distortions)

just the latest iteration of political stupidity (this would include the gop's flavor too)

it is crushing the stuffing right out of the middle class via reality versus political rhetoric

even the nyt times and wsj are admitting as much

listen to the daily today (premiums for the working folks has gone through the roof in spite of political promises)

our politicians couldn't build a solution to a problem if our lives depended on it

the good news is that eventually the credit card will max out and we will hit bottom

at that point we will have an opportunity to take the chains off build something that works

breach the fortress as they say

i have a dream - mlk

 
Im not because it still involves too many middlemen - insurers and PBMs.  But in truth, it needs a few more years to build scale...meaning, get everyone, including healthy folks who one day will be sick, in the pool and diversify the risk, reduce volatility and things should begin to stabilize. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 5:24am

good news and bad news

the bad news is that the affordable care act is anything but (force and coercion = horrible economic distortions)

just the latest iteration of political stupidity (this would include the gop's flavor too)

it is crushing the stuffing right out of the middle class via reality versus political rhetoric

even the nyt times and wsj are admitting as much

listen to the daily today (premiums for the working folks has gone through the roof in spite of political promises)

our politicians couldn't build a solution to a problem if our lives depended on it

the good news is that eventually the credit card will max out and we will hit bottom

at that point we will have an opportunity to take the chains off build something that works

breach the fortress as they say

i have a dream - mlk
Coaxial
Shine On.
Coaxial Avatar

Location: 543 miles west of Paradis,1491 miles east of Paradise
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jul 20, 2017 - 10:08am

 Steely_D wrote:

Wait. If I'm coherent my med level must be low.

{#Cheers} 

 
{#Snooty}
Steely_D
Angular banjoes sound good to me.
Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay, where the Cuban gentlemen sleep all day


Posted: Jul 20, 2017 - 10:04am

 
kurtster wrote:

I can get behind your thoughts.  Might disagree with some of them, but I do understand them as you presented them.


 
Wait. If I'm coherent my med level must be low.

{#Cheers} 
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Jul 20, 2017 - 8:23am

 kurtster wrote:

Respect is a two way street.  I try and be respectful in my replies.  Its rarely reciprocated because I support Trump.  Islander would be the exception, 
VV has said that I have lost all cred.  Well duh, I support Trump.  That all by itself strips me of any cred before I get started.  That is the premise I operate under.  

 
{#Snooty}
Lack of credibility in a person is based on track record of honesty and consistency. Doesn't matter what one's politics are. 

Example: Bawling about NYT ignoring a story, and insisting when presented with evidence showing you wrong, that you "wouldn't wrap fish with" the newspaper. So basically you are complaining about lack of reporting in a publication, and when it is shown you don't know what you're talking about, you dismiss them as a legitimate news source (ad hominem, red herring, take your pick). This sort of behavior inspires skepticism regarding your credibility and sincerity. And it has nothing to do with your politics.
black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Jul 20, 2017 - 6:06am

I'm starting to get used to the voucher system, supported broadly by HMOs.  We are already spending about 18% of the GDP on healthcare.  Take some % of GDP, maybe even 18%, and tie it to inflation and provide every citizen with $x to spend on the plan of their choosing...catastrophe, cadillac...all the gov is then doing is cutting a check.  Let the markets continue to create a performance based system...and ultimately the cheapest source of care...or for those who can afford it, the best care.  HMOs had a lot of negative press a couple decades ago, but are making strides.  The downside is still the inconvenience of going to a centralized facility, rather than up the street to my local doc. but it's the most cost effective model. 

Oh, and take the for profit insurance cos., PBMs, wholesalers, drug stores...out of the model.  They can continue to operate, but on a cooperative basis, where all profits are redistributed to members (their customers) and not stockholders...that should shave a few points off the % of GDP spending. 
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jul 20, 2017 - 4:47am

 islander wrote:

... be careful, the floor is wet with his tears.... again.

 
Trust me, there ain't no tears.  You're using the wrong filters.  You always do.

So with that, let me piss everyone off on purpose for a change and restate the obvious ...

1)  Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.

2)  Obamacare / The ACA is what you get when you trust politicians and let the government take over something so important as Health Care.  Something our government was never intended nor designed to do.

3)  and most important ... you get the government you deserve ... 

Take two aspirin and call Obama in the morning ... you can now call him anything you like ... cuz he ain't POTUS no more.

Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64  Next