OT- The Tipping Point Blowing up in Libs Face

[benko's army]

Perhaps 23 million people shouldn't depend on their government for anything. The government isn't there to create jobs or provide charity. Personal accountability, none of this is the governments role or responsibility.

That's right. If those poor bastards can't afford health care for themselves and their children, just let them die. And while we're at it, if poor Americans can't afford to buy food for themselves and their children, let them starve.

And if they become disabled, that's their problem. Not the government's problem. Thin the herd.

As long as we give the rich another tax cut, I'm good with it. Gotta look out for the rich.

#MAGA

 

[BGI User 1596]

Who actually interfered in the US presidential election, Putin or the presstitutes themselves? The answer is clear and obvious. It was the presstitutes, who were out to get Trump from day one of the presidential campaign. It is CIA director John Brennan, who did everything in his power to brand Trump some sort of Russian agent. It is FBI director Comey who did likewise by continuing to “investigate” what he knew was a non-event. We now have a former FBI director playing the role of special prosecutor investigating Trump for “obstruction of justice” when there is no evidence of a crime to be obstructed! What we are witnessing is the ongoing interference in the presidential election, an interference that not only makes a mockery of democracy but also of the rule of law.

 

[deadirishpoet]

That's right. If those poor bastards can't afford health care for themselves and their children, just let them die. And while we're at it, if poor Americans can't afford to buy food for themselves and their children, let them starve.

And if they become disabled, that's their problem. Not the government's problem. Thin the herd.

As long as we give the rich another tax cut, I'm good with it. Gotta look out for the rich.

#MAGA

Blah blah children are going to die....blah blah ....... push granny over the cliff......blah blah...rich tax break.... blah blah ..... Russia......blah blah
.... I want my Obama back

I guess the Dems didn't think this through before they passed a bad bill.
Maybe they might want to try different talking points from the ones that keep you losing elections

 

[deadirishpoet]

Who actually interfered in the US presidential election, Putin or the presstitutes themselves? The answer is clear and obvious. It was the presstitutes, who were out to get Trump from day one of the presidential campaign. It is CIA director John Brennan, who did everything in his power to brand Trump some sort of Russian agent. It is FBI director Comey who did likewise by continuing to “investigate” what he knew was a non-event. We now have a former FBI director playing the role of special prosecutor investigating Trump for “obstruction of justice” when there is no evidence of a crime to be obstructed! What we are witnessing is the ongoing interference in the presidential election, an interference that not only makes a mockery of democracy but also of the rule of law.

Thumbs high

 

[deadirishpoet]

Speaking about responsibility, what happened to The Dunce's promise for a better health plan covering more people at lower cost. Mitch can't deliver either.

The Dunce promised a lot of things to a lot of people I guess the dunce should have thought it through but then again all he wanted to do is wreck the system he never had a real plan thank God the dunce is out of office now

 

[Telx1]

Speaking about responsibility, what happened to The Dunce's promise for a better health plan covering more people at lower cost. Mitch can't deliver either.

The same thing that happened to Obama's campaign promise to pass healthcare for children only. You will recall that Hilary promised universal healthcare, and Obama differed by promising healthcare for children only, saying that adults have choices, but children don't. Obama was elected based on these type of promises, which of course he broke by supporting what is now called Obamacare.

 

[deadirishpoet]

The same thing that happened to Obama's campaign promise to pass healthcare for children only. You will recall that Hilary promised universal healthcare, and Obama differed by promising healthcare for children only, saying that adults have choices, but children don't. Obama was elected based on these type of promises, which of course he broke by supporting what is now called Obamacare.

President Obama's goal was to wreck the Healthcare System. He had no intention of fixing the healthcare system that was prior to the ACA(which it needed).
He knew it was back end loaded with lies, and was to fail when he got out of office.
President Obama was only interested in how he was being perceived, and the media helped him peddle his wares.
There you have it in a nutshell a reckless president with a reckless media at his side

 

[benko's army]

Blah blah children are going to die....blah blah ....... push granny over the cliff......blah blah...rich tax break.... blah blah ..... Russia......blah blah
.... I want my Obama back

I guess the Dems didn't think this through before they passed a bad bill.
Maybe they might want to try different talking points from the ones that keep you losing elections

You may be wealthy; I don't know. We haven't met and I don't know anything about you, other than you have a cool username.

If you're wealthy, then you're backing the right guy. You're going to get a nice tax cut. Happy for you, if that's the case.

If not, there's a strong chance this new bill will raise your costs. Also cuts Medicaid, bigly. Hurts those with preexisting conditions. Hurts women's ability to get care while pregnant. Allows insurers to screw the elderly.

So, as long as you're rich, young, a man with no preexisting conditions, and not close with any pregnant women or old people you give a damn about, then this bill is no problem for you.

Anyway, good luck.

 

[Telx1]

President Obama's goal was to wreck the Healthcare System. He had no intention of fixing the healthcare system that was prior to the ACA(which it needed).
He knew it was back end loaded with lies, and was to fail when he got out of office.
President Obama was only interested in how he was being perceived, and the media helped him peddle his wares.
There you have it in a nutshell a reckless president with a reckless media at his side

I firmly believe that all liberals and most Dems want a single payer government imposed universal healthcare system. They knew they could not pass this eight years ago, so they passed this dysfunctional bill knowing full well that it would fail; thus giving them the opportunity to blame the Insurance companies and expecting support for their single payer solution. There is no question that we would have gone down this path with Hillary as President, and Trump's election ruined this liberal dream for their single most important policy initiative.

 

[Telx1]

You may be wealthy; I don't know. We haven't met and I don't know anything about you, other than you have a cool username.

If you're wealthy, then you're backing the right guy. You're going to get a nice tax cut. Happy for you, if that's the case.

If not, there's a strong chance this new bill will raise your costs. Also cuts Medicaid, bigly. Hurts those with preexisting conditions. Hurts women's ability to get care while pregnant. Allows insurers to screw the elderly.

So, as long as you're rich, young, a man with no preexisting conditions, and not close with any pregnant women or old people you give a damn about, then this bill is no problem for you.

Anyway, good luck.

Care to be factual?
Even the CBO predicts premiums will stabilize and then come down. Medicaid was increased significantly with Obamacare, and this bill seeks to cap it and block grant it to States, not cut it. Pre existing conditions are covered but with a six month waiting period for those who dropped insurance, and then want coverage when they get sick (a way to provide an incentive to buy insurance versus the tax based mandate of Obamacare). Have no idea what you are referring to with respect to pregnant women. The costs to the elderly is an issue and one I expect the final bill to address.

 

[deadirishpoet]

You may be wealthy; I don't know. We haven't met and I don't know anything about you, other than you have a cool username.

If you're wealthy, then you're backing the right guy. You're going to get a nice tax cut. Happy for you, if that's the case.

If not, there's a strong chance this new bill will raise your costs. Also cuts Medicaid, bigly. Hurts those with preexisting conditions. Hurts women's ability to get care while pregnant. Allows insurers to screw the elderly.

So, as long as you're rich, young, a man with no preexisting conditions, and not close with any pregnant women or old people you give a damn about, then this bill is no problem for you.

Anyway, good luck.

I am retired Marine (25yrs), and since 2005 have been involved in the drilling industry (Geo tech not oil).,and to not be confused I work in the field not behind a desk.
I have made a good living after my time in the Marine Corps at the age of 45 through hard work and dedication because I didn't feel like being retired
.
I am far from Rich other than my belief in Jesus Christ.

This talk of tax breaks for the rich (whom by the way pay the majority of all taxes) is a straw man argument. We wouldn't even be having this argument if the fair tax was implemented.

The health-care bill the Republicans are trying to construct will not be perfect bill replace a terrible bill.
There was a reason why the Republicans were not signing on to the original bill.
And now they're trying to unscramble a scrambled egg and they don't want to lose their constituents just to get something past

This is how it should have worked from the beginning Congress create the Bill send it to the Senate to be ratified if not it send it back to the Congress.
As much as everyone once this to be done quickly it will not be
And it would be best for Democrats like Tim Ryan to get involved and straighten out his party

Thanks for the kind words you have a great day

 

[deadirishpoet]

I firmly believe that all liberals and most Dems want a single payer government imposed universal healthcare system. They knew they could not pass this eight years ago, so they passed this dysfunctional bill knowing full well that it would fail; thus giving them the opportunity to blame the Insurance companies and expecting support for their single payer solution. There is no question that we would have gone down this path with Hillary as President, and Trump's election ruined this liberal dream for their single most important policy initiative.

I agree with all of this but to be fair the insurance companies with congress's help throughout the decades were running probably one of the biggest scams ever.
It needed to be fixed
Now it's a huge mass and will not be fixed who knows when.

 

[Telx1]

I agree with all of this but to be fair the insurance companies with congress's help throughout the decades were running probably one of the biggest scams ever.
It needed to be fixed
Now it's a huge mass and will not be fixed who knows when.

The biggest scam of all was the huge annual government gift subsidy to Insurance companies that Obamacare provided. Really nothing short of a shakedown by the insurance companies in exchange for supporting Obamacare. Once Rubio exposed this and got it unfunded, the Insurance companies started pulling out.

 

[Irish Duck]

Here's what I don't get. Why shouldn't the government provide universal healthcare? Every other First World Nation does that for their citizens. I know that it is expense and can be inefficient but what is the alternative? I've known too many people that filed bankruptcy because they couldn't afford to pay their medical bills from an unexpected illness or injury. I've known too many elderly people that had to sell the house they had lived in for 40 years and spend down their estate to $3,000 in order to qualify for Medicaid and get into a mediocre nursing home.

What many people don't understand is that we provide free medical treatment to people even without Obamacare. The bonehead who suffers a serious brain injury when he crashes his motorcycle while not wearing a helmet. The hospitals are not going to turn him away. He will get disability coverage from SSI. Anybody else that shows up at a hospital because of a medical condition will not be turned away.

How about those suffering from mental illness? Why shouldn't the government provide treatment to them?

While I'm all for personal responsibility, I also recognize that we are part of a community that must, and should, help one another. I certainly won't like it when I see my tax dollars being spent on people who refuse to help themselves by stopping smoking; who refuse to engage in even moderate exercise; and those who actually like Nickelback. Then again, I don't like how my tax dollars are being spent on the Drug War and on military interventionism.

If the argument against universal healthcare is that it is too expensive, consider that the Federal government received $3+ trillion dollars in revenue in 2015. In that same year, the Federal government spent $600B in defense spending. It also spent about $40B on the failed Drug War and Federal and state governments combined spent $74B on prisons. Sen. Rand Paul was able to identify $1B in wasteful federal spending like promoting Xmas trees at Xmas and yoga classes for federal employees.

We can afford universal healthcare. We just need to decide that it is a priority for us.

By the way, here's a great article on how to fix our healthcare system.http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/27/o...ealth-care-sachs0500AMN/ALink&linkId=39177689

 

[deadirishpoet]

The biggest scam of all was the huge annual government gift subsidy to Insurance companies that Obamacare provided. Really nothing short of a shakedown by the insurance companies in exchange for supporting Obamacare. Once Rubio exposed this and got it unfunded, the Insurance companies started pulling out.

I took 6 months off work and campaign for Rubio, but between President Trump rhetoric on the campaign Trail and people's distrust in the status quo he didn't stand a chance.

 

[deadirishpoet]

Here's what I don't get. Why shouldn't the government provide universal healthcare? Every other First World Nation does that for their citizens. I know that it is expense and can be inefficient but what is the alternative? I've known too many people that filed bankruptcy because they couldn't afford to pay their medical bills from an unexpected illness or injury. I've known too many elderly people that had to sell the house they had lived in for 40 years and spend down their estate to $3,000 in order to qualify for Medicaid and get into a mediocre nursing home.

What many people don't understand is that we provide free medical treatment to people even without Obamacare. The bonehead who suffers a serious brain injury when he crashes his motorcycle while not wearing a helmet. The hospitals are not going to turn him away. He will get disability coverage from SSI. Anybody else that shows up at a hospital because of a medical condition will not be turned away.

How about those suffering from mental illness? Why shouldn't the government provide treatment to them?

While I'm all for personal responsibility, I also recognize that we are part of a community that must, and should, help one another. I certainly won't like it when I see my tax dollars being spent on people who refuse to help themselves by stopping smoking; who refuse to engage in even moderate exercise; and those who actually like Nickelback. Then again, I don't like how my tax dollars are being spent on the Drug War and on military interventionism.

If the argument against universal healthcare is that it is too expensive, consider that the Federal government received $3+ trillion dollars in revenue in 2015. In that same year, the Federal government spent $600B in defense spending. It also spent about $40B on the failed Drug War and Federal and state governments combined spent $74B on prisons. Sen. Rand Paul was able to identify $1B in wasteful federal spending like promoting Xmas trees at Xmas and yoga classes for federal employees.

We can afford universal healthcare. We just need to decide that it is a priority for us.

You can always move.
This country wasn't built on the government giving you stuff.
Why should the government be our charity in our communities when our communities can establish a well better run charity.

This country cannot in no way afford Universal Health Care they tried it in the state of Vermont it failed they're trying to look at it in California at the cost of four hundred billion dollars a year.

Agree about the War on Drugs it is a failure but defense spending is part of our constitution not Health Care.
I like Rand Paul health care bill, and yes he did discover wasteful spending because that's what the fFeedom Caucus does
Come join us and help us fix this country

 

[Telx1]

I think Rubio would have beat Hillary handily, and I think the mainstream media didn't want this choice. That said, Bush ran an incredible number of anti Rubio political ads, and Rubio stubbed his toe in the debate where Christie made him look silly; and at the end of the day, too many candidates allowed the outsider Trump to get the nomination with about 35% constant support. Not a Trump fan, but accept he's our President, and support many of his initiatives thus far. The well being of the country is more important than partisan politics, and the resist group has lost sight of this.

 

[deadirishpoet]

I think Rubio would have beat Hillary handily, and I think the mainstream media didn't want this choice. That said, Bush ran an incredible number of anti Rubio political ads, and Rubio stubbed his toe in the debate where Christie made him look silly; and at the end of the day, too many candidates allowed the outsider Trump to get the nomination with about 35% constant support. Not a Trump fan, but accept he's our President, and support many of his initiatives thus far. The well being of the country is more important than partisan politics, and the resist group has lost sight of this.

Like I've posted this was an election of bad choices
President Trump is not the ideal person without a doubt I also agree with a lot of his policies to this point, but,....... Well let's just say I'm uncomfortable with his approaches

 

[Irish Duck]

You can always move.
This country wasn't built on the government giving you stuff.
Why should the government be our charity in our communities when our communities can establish a well better run charity.

This country cannot in no way afford Universal Health Care they tried it in the state of Vermont it failed they're trying to look at it in California at the cost of four hundred billion dollars a year.

Agree about the War on Drugs it is a failure but defense spending is part of our constitution not Health Care.
I like Rand Paul health care bill, and yes he did discover wasteful spending because that's what the fFeedom Caucus does
Come join us and help us fix this country

Why would your first response be "You can always move?" I appreciate your statement (ignoring the double negative) that we cannot "in no way afford Universal Health Care." What is your basis for that opinion? The fact that it might not work for individual states does not mean that it won't work for the country as a whole. Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, Japan, etc. all figured out a way to afford it. Are you suggesting that we aren't as smart as the rest of the world?

The fact that the Freedom Caucus did one thing right (finding wasteful spending) does not necessarily mean they are right on any other issue. In fact, the whole premise of the Freedom Caucus seems mean spirited and contrary to the American ideals that I was always taught. You are, however, certainly welcome to your own opinions, even if those opinions include the belief that Americans aren't as smart as the rest of the World.

By the way, what do you mean when you say that this country wasn't built on the government giving you stuff? Do you not read your history? The government gave away huge tracts of lands to people willing to populate the West. The government gave away huge tracts of lands to the railroads. The government gave away broadcast rights to private companies for radio and television. What do you think tax breaks for the rich are? This country was, in fact, built on government "giving away stuff."

 

[deadirishpoet]

Why would your first response be "You can always move?" I appreciate your statement (ignoring the double negative) that we cannot "in no way afford Universal Health Care." What is your basis for that opinion? The fact that it might not work for individual states does not mean that it won't work for the country as a whole. Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, Japan, etc. all figured out a way to afford it. Are you suggesting that we aren't as smart as the rest of the world?

The fact that the Freedom Caucus did one thing right (finding wasteful spending) does not necessarily mean they are right on any other issue. In fact, the who premise of the Freedom Caucus seems mean spirited and contrary to the American ideals that I was always taught. You are, however, certainly welcome to your own opinions, even if those opinions include the belief that Americans aren't as smart as the rest of the World.

By the way, what do you mean when you say that this country wasn't built on the government giving you stuff? Do you not read your history? The government gave away huge tracts of lands to people willing to populate the West. The government gave away huge tracts of lands to the railroads. The government gave away broadcast rights to private companies for radio and television. This country was, in fact, built on government "giving away stuff."

I started off with that brother to let you know this is a free country and you can leave it if you don't like it

Now your statement that America isn't as smart as the rest of the world only compound's your youthful ignorance. Why would we give the federal government a chance to run something when they're very inefficient at most things they run
Those countries wish they were the United States.

All those countries listed does not have the responsibility that the United States has in the world

Those things you said the government gave away were lands unused
They did not take from one to give to another so you might want to learn your history a little more
The freedom caucus has done a lot more than just one right thing you might want to look into them

Like I said if you believe the world is smarter go to where the smarter people are then and leave us dumb Americans alone

 

[Irish Duck]

I started off with that brother to let you know this is a free country and you can leave it if you don't like it

Now your statement that America isn't as smart as the rest of the world only compound's your youthful ignorance. Why would we give the federal government a chance to run something when they're very inefficient at most things they run
Those countries wish they were the United States.

All those countries listed does not have the responsibility that the United States has in the world

Those things you said the government gave away were lands unused
They did not take from one to give to another so you might want to learn your history a little more
The freedom caucus has done a lot more than just one right thing you might want to look into them

Like I said if you believe the world is smarter go to where the smarter people are then and leave us dumb Americans alone

DIP, you really need to do your research. Yes, I am free to leave this country, as are you. That fact doesn't add anything to the discussion of what is best for our country.

As to government inefficiency, this suggests that you believe that the private sector is, de facto, more efficient than the public sector. That belief is misguided. First of all, if the private sector were more efficient, there would be no need for corporate bankruptcies like Chrysler, General Motors, Lehman Bros., and various Trump entities. Also, there is a significant difference between what is supposed to be non-profit entity (the government) and what is supposed to be a for-profit entity (the private sector). The government running a healthcare system is focused on providing healthcare to its citizens. The private sector running a healthcare system is focused on profits. Did you even bother reading the article I posted? Here it is again.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/27/o...ealth-care-sachs0500AMN/ALink&linkId=39177689

Take the time to read it and you just might find out that there are valid opinions other than yours.

Your suggestion that the government gave away lands that were unused is really sad. That land was being used by Native Americans and, in many cases, was stolen from Native Americans despite treaties that the government had signed.

As to Americans not being as smart as the rest of the world, I only stated what you implied. The fact that you believe that every other county wants to be America is as arrogant as it is misguided. Why would Germany or Switzerland ever want to be us? Why would Denmark or Sweden or Ireland ever want to be us? As I see it, we are warmongers who arm the world and then, when our enemies get their hands on the weapons that we have distributed, we send our sons and daughters to die so we can overthrow sovereign regimes. Oh yes, this is something we should all be proud of and that the world clearly envies!

 

[deadirishpoet]

DIP, you really need to do your research. Yes, I am free to leave this country, as are you. That fact doesn't add anything to the discussion of what is best for our country.

As to government inefficiency, this suggests that you believe that the private sector is, de facto, more efficient than the public sector. That belief is misguided. First of all, if the private sector were more efficient, there would be no need for corporate bankruptcies like Chrysler, General Motors, Lehman Bros., and various Trump entities. Also, there is a significant difference between what is supposed to be non-profit entity (the government) and what is supposed to be a for-profit entity (the private sector). The government running a healthcare system is focused on providing healthcare to its citizens. The private sector running a healthcare system is focused on profits. Did you even bother reading the article I posted? Here it is again.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/27/o...ealth-care-sachs0500AMN/ALink&linkId=39177689

Take the time to read it and you just might find out that there are valid opinions other than yours.

Your suggestion that the government gave away lands that were unused is really sad. That land was being used by Native Americans and, in many cases, was stolen from Native Americans despite treaties that the government had signed.

As to Americans not being as smart as the rest of the world, I only stated what you implied. The fact that you believe that every other county wants to be America is as arrogant as it is misguided. Why would Germany or Switzerland ever want to be us? Why would Denmark or Sweden or Ireland ever want to be us? As I see it, we are warmongers who arm the world and then, when our enemies get their hands on the weapons that we have distributed, we send our sons and daughters to die so we can overthrow sovereign regimes. Oh yes, this is something we should all be proud of and that the world clearly envies!

Gezz where do I begin.

First of all the land was not stolen from the Indians they were conquered . You might not like the history of this great country you may not like that fact but those are the facts.
Much like every other governments in the world they conquered the land they are on.

Why would those countries want to be like us? To have the influence that the United States possesses.

So you believe America is a warmongering nation? You don't believe Russia China, or Iran arm the world?
The United States have freed more countries from tyranny than any other countries in the world combined
Those countries that you drool over us wanting to be like we freed them from tyranny
You might want to do yourself a favor join the armed services and see what we exactly do
The private sector is more efficient those are plain facts. If companies make bad decisions and go bankrupt to hell with them someone else will fill the void.
One of the worst things President Obama did (and he did a lot of worse things) was to bail out the Auto industry
Don't get me wrong big businesses no better than big government but it's easier to keep big business in check than big government.
Government Health Care will become one of the biggest bureaucracies out there even bigger than the environmental agencies and you believe they're only provision will be to its citizens? You don't believe illegal immigrants will fall into this mix?

The Constitution doesn't State anything about the government having to provide Health Care
You'll have to get this through your head at some point, or read the Constitution though I believe you might want to men 90% of it good luck with that

 

[rgc7]

Duck,
I read your previous post before the above one and the post covered a number of points,
But let,s not muddy the waters by too many points and stick strictly to health care coverage.
Since I did live for a few years in Germany in the early 1960's, I can say without a doubt that their
Socialized health care system was great !
1. They were just about starting from "scratch "
2. Their was very little , if any , unemployment. In fact, Germany welcomed all the guest workers that they could mostly from Italy and Spain as well as some Muslim Nations.
3. The German lived under the Military umbrella of the USA which was a hugh cost saving to the Germans.
4. The population was relatively young and fully employed.
That has been changing rapidly especially since the Wall came down, and the population ages.
My German relatives now have long waits for needed procedures , and also have to buy supplemental insurance in many cases. In short, the system is starting to deteriorate rapid. Unemployment is getting
Higher, people are aging, and " Immigrants " are adding to the burden on the Total German Welfare System.
Got to run out now , but the above is just some " Food for though " until I come back.

 

[Telx1]

Why would your first response be "You can always move?" I appreciate your statement (ignoring the double negative) that we cannot "in no way afford Universal Health Care." What is your basis for that opinion? The fact that it might not work for individual states does not mean that it won't work for the country as a whole. Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, Japan, etc. all figured out a way to afford it. Are you suggesting that we aren't as smart as the rest of the world?

The fact that the Freedom Caucus did one thing right (finding wasteful spending) does not necessarily mean they are right on any other issue. In fact, the whole premise of the Freedom Caucus seems mean spirited and contrary to the American ideals that I was always taught. You are, however, certainly welcome to your own opinions, even if those opinions include the belief that Americans aren't as smart as the rest of the World.

By the way, what do you mean when you say that this country wasn't built on the government giving you stuff? Do you not read your history? The government gave away huge tracts of lands to people willing to populate the West. The government gave away huge tracts of lands to the railroads. The government gave away broadcast rights to private companies for radio and television. What do you think tax breaks for the rich are? This country was, in fact, built on government "giving away stuff."

Irishduck, your question is the right question; but of course you taint it with a bias for a single payer system. Regardless, I think this should be answered at the national level with honesty and transparency, something I think the Dems are hesitant and fearful to do.
On a micro level, I have Medicare as my primary insurance, and I pay a monthly premium of around $250 because my income (I'm retired) justifies this per the Fed government. I pay no copay for appointments and hospitalization is covered at 80%. The private insurance I had when I last worked provided for $20 co pay for every appointment, 80% coverage for hospitalization, etc... with a $5000 out of pocket annual cap. As is the norm in this country, this was an employer driven benefit, and the total monthly cost to the employer was around $1000. When you ask a provider whether they prefer Medicare reimbursement or private insurance like what I had, the answer is surprisingly, Medicare. The reason, they reimburse at a higher level than what most Group Insurance plans reimburse.
The comparison is stark. Medicare reimburses at a higher level, it requires no co-pay for appointments, and the premium is $750 a month less than the cost of the employer group coverage. Is it any wonder that Medicare is totally underfunded and technically broke?
As I said, this alternative deserves an honest open transparent debate at the national level, but one that honestly details the monthly cost to ensure adequate funding, and one that honestly lays out the alternative levels of service. Conservatives are not the rich money grubbing me first people the left likes to endlessly depict. I strongly believe everyone should have access to state of the art healthcare, and that government should take care of the least fortunate among us vis a vis Medicaid. I also happen to favor an employer based system as the core as I think this is measurably more efficient than a totally government run system. BUT, these alternatives should be debated, and neither Party has shown the stomach for this level of transparency and cost and service delivery comparisons to place before the American people.

 

[deadirishpoet]

Irishduck, your question is the right question; but of course you taint it with a bias for a single payer system. Regardless, I think this should be answered at the national level with honesty and transparency, something I think the Dems are hesitant and fearful to do.
On a micro level, I have Medicare as my primary insurance, and I pay a monthly premium of around $250 because my income (I'm retired) justifies this per the Fed government. I pay no copay for appointments and hospitalization is covered at 80%. The private insurance I had when I last worked provided for $20 co pay for every appointment, 80% coverage for hospitalization, etc... with a $5000 out of pocket annual cap. As is the norm in this country, this was an employer driven benefit, and the total monthly cost to the employer was around $1000. When you ask a provider whether they prefer Medicare reimbursement or private insurance like what I had, the answer is surprisingly, Medicare. The reason, they reimburse at a higher level than what most Group Insurance plans reimburse.
The comparison is stark. Medicare reimburses at a higher level, it requires no co-pay for appointments, and the premium is $750 a month less than the cost of the employer group coverage. Is it any wonder that Medicare is totally underfunded and technically broke?
As I said, this alternative deserves an honest open transparent debate at the national level, but one that honestly details the monthly cost to ensure adequate funding, and one that honestly lays out the alternative levels of service. Conservatives are not the rich money grubbing me first people the left likes to endlessly depict. I strongly believe everyone should have access to state of the art healthcare, and that government should take care of the least fortunate among us vis a vis Medicaid. I also happen to favor an employer based system as the core as I think this is measurably more efficient than a totally government run system. BUT, these alternatives should be debated, and neither Party has shown the stomach for this level of transparency and cost and service delivery comparisons to place before the American people.

Wow I did not realize some of these things

 

[NIN Irish]

Irishduck, your question is the right question; but of course you taint it with a bias for a single payer system. Regardless, I think this should be answered at the national level with honesty and transparency, something I think the Dems are hesitant and fearful to do.
On a micro level, I have Medicare as my primary insurance, and I pay a monthly premium of around $250 because my income (I'm retired) justifies this per the Fed government. I pay no copay for appointments and hospitalization is covered at 80%. The private insurance I had when I last worked provided for $20 co pay for every appointment, 80% coverage for hospitalization, etc... with a $5000 out of pocket annual cap. As is the norm in this country, this was an employer driven benefit, and the total monthly cost to the employer was around $1000. When you ask a provider whether they prefer Medicare reimbursement or private insurance like what I had, the answer is surprisingly, Medicare. The reason, they reimburse at a higher level than what most Group Insurance plans reimburse.
The comparison is stark. Medicare reimburses at a higher level, it requires no co-pay for appointments, and the premium is $750 a month less than the cost of the employer group coverage. Is it any wonder that Medicare is totally underfunded and technically broke?
As I said, this alternative deserves an honest open transparent debate at the national level, but one that honestly details the monthly cost to ensure adequate funding, and one that honestly lays out the alternative levels of service. Conservatives are not the rich money grubbing me first people the left likes to endlessly depict. I strongly believe everyone should have access to state of the art healthcare, and that government should take care of the least fortunate among us vis a vis Medicaid. I also happen to favor an employer based system as the core as I think this is measurably more efficient than a totally government run system. BUT, these alternatives should be debated, and neither Party has shown the stomach for this level of transparency and cost and service delivery comparisons to place before the American people.

As a manager of a hospital department, I can say this statement isn't true. Medicare reimburses at a much lower rate for hospital procedures, and hospital stays than private insurance by thousands. (Bigly)

 

[deadirishpoet]

As a manager of a hospital department, I can say this statement isn't true. Medicare reimburses at a much lower rate for hospital procedures, and hospital stays than private insurance by thousands. (Bigly)

This is so complicated
How in the hell is a common person supposed to know the right thing to do?

 

[deadirishpoet]

Irish Duck

If I came across harsh that was not my intention I apologize

 

[echowaker]

President Obama's goal was to wreck the Healthcare System. He had no intention of fixing the healthcare system that was prior to the ACA(which it needed).
He knew it was back end loaded with lies, and was to fail when he got out of office.
President Obama was only interested in how he was being perceived, and the media helped him peddle his wares.
There you have it in a nutshell a reckless president with a reckless media at his side

Utter nonsense.

 

[Telx1]

As a manager of a hospital department, I can say this statement isn't true. Medicare reimburses at a much lower rate for hospital procedures, and hospital stays than private insurance by thousands. (Bigly)

Well I've had six shoulder surgeries in the past three years, and I've asked this question of my surgeon and my physical therapist, and they both gave the same answer, Medicare. Hospital costs may be entirely different. You raising this perspective actually supports my main argument, and that is we need an honest open transparent discussion at the national level that lays out compares alternative healthcare systems at these levels of detail...cost and service levels and implications for quality and number of Drs and Hospitals, etc... As is, we are left to form opinions about a terribly complex and important issue based on personal experience or political and special interest driven sound bites.

 

[deadirishpoet]

Utter nonsense.

Then how do you explain his lies while pushing for the ACA, or or it failed right after his departure from office as reported by many news outlets would happen right after the passing?

 

[Quest4Twelve]

President Obama is very calculated.
He was calculated in the Affordable Care Act in the fictions about the way he presented it
He was calculated in blaming a video for the attacks at Benghazi
He was calculated in the back room deals with Iran.
He was calculated making the talk-show circuit about how the people need to not be afraid of the government yet he spied on them.
He was calculated in his attempts to influence the Israeli elections colluding with the opposition
He was calculated during an off mic comment to the Russians.
He was calculated in stirring up opposition to law enforcement
He was calculated going on the world stage and apologizing for America to appease those who are envious
He was measured in mostly all things he did except for those who called his bluff. And it was they who took advantage of him

I find it funny when the discussion 'was' solely about football, everyone sounded sane. As soon as politics became mainstay, a whole bunch of crazy came out.

 

[deadirishpoet]

I find it funny when the discussion 'was' solely about football, everyone sounded sane. As soon as politics became mainstay, a whole bunch of crazy came out.

Which one do you dispute?

Welcome to the party

 

[SALittleGiant513]

The joke isn't on President Trump who is attempting to fix this shipwreck the joke is on the Democrats and the president who pushed this fabricated Theory

This is what you get when you rush a bill through thank you Democrats thank you president Obama.

Let's be clear though as I've stated Pleasant Obama's is very calculated and he was trying to move this country into a single payer system as part of his fog clouded Utopia

The reason the Democratic party has lost so many seats is because they forced the ACA
The Republicans are trying to fix it without disrupting they're voting base.

Lolz... if Obama and libs rushed the ACA what are we calling the GOP efforts with this new bill?

 

[deadirishpoet]

Lolz... if Obama and libs rushed the ACA what are we calling the GOP efforts with this new bill?

A work in progress

You cannot say the same thing about the Democrats monstrosity of a health care bill because it's on life support now

the Republicans are trying to unscramble the scrambled egg

Democrats should stay silent on this issue
Because no matter what they own it

 

[SALittleGiant513]

So trying to get a bill voted on within a week of announcing it to the public and only canceling the vote because of public push back is "a work in progress?" Let's value logical consistency to some degree.

 

[Irish Duck]

DIP, I am never offended by someone with strong opinions as long as they are intelligent opinions. I disagree with your opinions but respect your right to have them. I want to address a few of your points:

1. I agree that the Native Americans were defeated but our government did not treat them as a defeated people and just make them citizens. They allowed them to retain their sovereignty and entered into treaties with them. I think this was foolish but that is what happened. We also violated those treaties on numerous occasions and was wrong. Of course, there was also racism and cruelty involved both those are discussions for another day.

2. One thing that we agree upon is that the Constitution doesn't provide for healthcare. Of course the Constitution also doesn't provide for a lot of things that the government currently provides (not to mention that the Constitution, in its original form, recognized and authorized slavery). The fact that the Constitution doesn't require universal healthcare doesn't mean the government can't and/or shouldn't do so.

3. By saying that the US is a warmonger, I wasn't suggesting that other nations aren't also. There is little dispute, however, that we are a militaristic and interventionist nation. US history is replete with the US government, overtly or covertly, overthrowing nations, i.e. Nicaragua, Panama, Iran, Iraq, Granada, Afghanistan, etc. Our involvement in WW II was wonderful and heroic but please remember that we were part of a coalition. Also, we didn't suffer the infrastructure damage that the rest of the world did.

4. The healthcare bureaucracy will be huge if it is to cover everyone. It will take a lot of work, on a bipartisan basis, to make that bureaucracy work. There will be abuses but the question is whether the cost of the abuses will overshadow the benefit provided.

5. Illegal immigrants? I'm not going down this rabbit hole. Let's just say that I'm more of an open border-guy than you are.

rgc7, you make a good argument and I recognize that the state of Germany's healthcare system is troubling. That being said, it is still better than the mess we have. In 2014, German spent 11.4 of its GDP on healthcare. That same year, the US spent 17.1 of its GDP. By every metric I've been able to find, the US lags behind the rest of the First World Nations in the cost and quality of healthcare.

Telx1, I'm only a few years from being eligible for Medicare and I hope it will still be available then. Medicare is a form of single payer system that seems to work pretty well. It is certainly underfunded but that is correctable.

To all, a friend of mine brought this to my attention as a problem with for profit companies being in charge of health care. Let's say you have a company that makes 25% of its revenues from diabetes-related drugs. These drugs help to control and to minimize the detrimental impact of that disease. If you are the president of that company and had the opportunity to bring to market a drug that would cure diabetes, knowing that it would then reduce your revenues by 25%, would you do it? As president of the Company, your allegiance is not to the general public but, rather, to your shareholders. If you bring this new drug to market and thereby reduce the company's profitability, you may have breached your fiduciary obligations to your shareholders. That, more than anything else, is why we absolutely have to take the "profit" out of health care.

 

[SeanPol355]

I am retired Marine (25yrs), and since 2005 have been involved in the drilling industry (Geo tech not oil).,and to not be confused I work in the field not behind a desk.
I have made a good living after my time in the Marine Corps at the age of 45 through hard work and dedication because I didn't feel like being retired
.
I am far from Rich other than my belief in Jesus Christ.

This talk of tax breaks for the rich (whom by the way pay the majority of all taxes) is a straw man argument. We wouldn't even be having this argument if the fair tax was implemented.

The health-care bill the Republicans are trying to construct will not be perfect bill replace a terrible bill.
There was a reason why the Republicans were not signing on to the original bill.
And now they're trying to unscramble a scrambled egg and they don't want to lose their constituents just to get something past

This is how it should have worked from the beginning Congress create the Bill send it to the Senate to be ratified if not it send it back to the Congress.
As much as everyone once this to be done quickly it will not be
And it would be best for Democrats like Tim Ryan to get involved and straighten out his party

Thanks for the kind words you have a great day

You sound more like a Democrat. As a Veteran you have universal health care to fall back on (VA). You also have a taxpayer financed pension. Lastly, you work in a taxpayer subsidized energy efficiency industry. You clearly get more back from government than you pay in.

 

[deadirishpoet]

DIP, I am never offended by someone with strong opinions as long as they are intelligent opinions. I disagree with your opinions but respect your right to have them. I want to address a few of your points:

1. I agree that the Native Americans were defeated but our government did not treat them as a defeated people and just make them citizens. They allowed them to retain their sovereignty and entered into treaties with them. I think this was foolish but that is what happened. We also violated those treaties on numerous occasions and was wrong. Of course, there was also racism and cruelty involved both those are discussions for another day.

2. One thing that we agree upon is that the Constitution doesn't provide for healthcare. Of course the Constitution also doesn't provide for a lot of things that the government currently provides (not to mention that the Constitution, in its original form, recognized and authorized slavery). The fact that the Constitution doesn't require universal healthcare doesn't mean the government can't and/or shouldn't do so.

3. By saying that the US is a warmonger, I wasn't suggesting that other nations aren't also. There is little dispute, however, that we are a militaristic and interventionist nation. US history is replete with the US government, overtly or covertly, overthrowing nations, i.e. Nicaragua, Panama, Iran, Iraq, Granada, Afghanistan, etc. Our involvement in WW II was wonderful and heroic but please remember that we were part of a coalition. Also, we didn't suffer the infrastructure damage that the rest of the world did.

4. The healthcare bureaucracy will be huge if it is to cover everyone. It will take a lot of work, on a bipartisan basis, to make that bureaucracy work. There will be abuses but the question is whether the cost of the abuses will overshadow the benefit provided.

5. Illegal immigrants? I'm not going down this rabbit hole. Let's just say that I'm more of an open border-guy than you are.

rgc7, you make a good argument and I recognize that the state of Germany's healthcare system is troubling. That being said, it is still better than the mess we have. In 2014, German spent 11.4 of its GDP on healthcare. That same year, the US spent 17.1 of its GDP. By every metric I've been able to find, the US lags behind the rest of the First World Nations in the cost and quality of healthcare.

Telx1, I'm only a few years from being eligible for Medicare and I hope it will still be available then. Medicare is a form of single payer system that seems to work pretty well. It is certainly underfunded but that is correctable.

To all, a friend of mine brought this to my attention as a problem with for profit companies being in charge of health care. Let's say you have a company that makes 25% of its revenues from diabetes-related drugs. These drugs help to control and to minimize the detrimental impact of that disease. If you are the president of that company and had the opportunity to bring to market a drug that would cure diabetes, knowing that it would then reduce your revenues by 25%, would you do it? As president of the Company, your allegiance is not to the general public but, rather, to your shareholders. If you bring this new drug to market and thereby reduce the company's profitability, you may have breached your fiduciary obligations to your shareholders. That, more than anything else, is why we absolutely have to take the "profit" out of health care.

Irish Duck. That's good to hear if we all sounded like then we would all sound like floridaIrish....... Just joking brother

1 the only reason I brought up the land being conquered as compared to stolen was just to keep the records straight.

The US government did some terrible things there is no disputing that.

2 you can refer to the Constitution in the regard of government getting involved with Healthcare would fall under state rights.

3 - by overthrowing those countries you listed Mad Men leaders can also be found in the Constitution where does the federal government's responsibility to protect its Nation

Now that subject can be interpreted very broadly and has been. I am not sure what the intelligence that created those actions so that's when you leave your faith in your representatives.
The reason we did not suffer the infrastructure damage is because we took the fight to them.

4 if the health-care bureaucracy is going to be huge then there's no greater weapon for either party to use against its citizens will be their Healthcare
This needs to be handled by the individual States

5 SHOCKER

 

[rgc7]

Duck,
Just got back home and read your reply.
You state that " the US lags behind the rest of the first world Nations in the cost and quality of health care. "
I don't know what metrics you are using ? I can tell you ,however, the feedback that I get ( not scientific )
From Relatives in Germany indicates to me that their system has declined and continues to decline.
You do give metrics of 11.4 % of GDP spent on German health care and 17.1% spent in the USA.
Spending less may not necessarily translate into better care ! In fact, it may reflect quite the opposite ?