OT- The Tipping Point Blowing up in Libs Face

[Irish Duck]

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 ?

While I know we are all wary of polls but I have even less faith in anecdotal evidence. Here are some articles that seem to give a pretty fair analysis.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/24...ump-care-paul-ryan-affordable-healthcare-act/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#197dae24576f

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub.../oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

http://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publi...lth-care-system-an-international-perspective/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/02/news/economy/obamacare-healthcare-systems/index.html

 

[deadirishpoet]

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 ?

Just because you don't get insurance does not mean you will be without Healthcare.

You would assume by all the negative talk that less people will be insured when in fact Millions more will be insured just not the number the CBO gives

Creating more jobs will give more people access to a more affordable insurance.

I was just watching people on TV outside of Marco Rubio's office chanting "don't take my Healthcare" not realizing the Democrats who voted for the ACA will be the ones who took their Healthcare by approving an unsustainable one....... Or maybe they do know and need to go out and get a job and let them do their job

 

[rgc7]

Duck,
You make another point ( a complete impossibility ) " We should absolutely take the profit out of health care ".
OK , Ler's try it :
1. A Doctor gets out of medical shool, he is deeply in debt with student loans. Eventually,
He opens an office ( a business ). He must employ help, pay his bills, and make a decent living
In line with his level of education. He must make a profit ,
2. All Pharmaceutical companies must make profits to cover all expenses, pay shareholders dividends, and ( most importantly ) invest a large % of those profits into research for new anad improved
Drugs and procedures to improve the quality of life for all humanity.
3. You give an example of a company finding a drug that would complete cure diabetes. That is exactly what these companies are trying to do. Cure all diseases.
I do a lot of independent research into many young cutting edge drug companies. Their research is into
Curing disease like cancer. Such a breakthrough drug will make their shareholder rich.
4. There are a number of other type diseases that are limited to a relatively small number of people.
Since the market for drugs for these diseases are relatively small, pharmaceutical companies do not devote
Much research to these disease.
In short , no profit, no hospitals, no doctor's, no new breakthrough drugs. Without profits Civilization
Moves backwards not forward.

 

[Irish Duck]

Just because you don't get insurance does not mean you will be without Healthcare.

You would assume by all the negative talk that less people will be insured when in fact Millions more will be insured just not the number the CBO gives

Creating more jobs will give more people access to a more affordable insurance.

I was just watching people on TV outside of Marco Rubio's office chanting "don't take my Healthcare" not realizing the Democrats who voted for the ACA will be the ones who took their Healthcare by approving an unsustainable one....... Or maybe they do know and need to go out and get a job and let them do their job

DIP, Obamacare may be unsustainable by why do the Rs have to replace it? Why not just fix it? Wouldn't that be the easiest and least expensive way to handle it. By the way, the main reason that premiums are increasing is the uncertainty arising out of what the Rs will do and insurance companies hate uncertainty. If the government would agree to continue with Obamacare but with major modifications, much of the uncertainty would dissipate. Of course that won't happen because of partisan politics. The Rs simply can't stand to accept anything that the Dems and/or Obama did. Of course if the shoe were on the other foot, the Dems would be doing the same thing so I don't just blame the Rs. This is modern day politics and it stinks.

Finally, what jobs are coming back? Coal jobs are not coming back. Low skilled manufacturing jobs are not coming back. Companies will either still go overseas for low cost labor or will use robots to do manual labor. There will be new jobs in the service industries and for highly skilled workers but, of course, we don't invest in higher education in order to create highly skilled workers. Ah, what a world we live in.

 

[deadirishpoet]

While I know we are all wary of polls but I have even less faith in anecdotal evidence. Here are some articles that seem to give a pretty fair analysis.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/24...ump-care-paul-ryan-affordable-healthcare-act/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#197dae24576f

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub.../oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

http://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publi...lth-care-system-an-international-perspective/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/02/news/economy/obamacare-healthcare-systems/index.html

Reading the Forbes one those countries do not have the population the United States does. Nor do they have the foreign responsibilities as the United States does.

The poll is Apples to oranges.

Is smaller better? Maybe it needs to go to the States as the Constitution suggest if a governing power was to be involved

 

[Irish Duck]

Duck,
You make another point ( a complete impossibility ) " We should absolutely thane the profit out of health care ".
OK , Ler's try it :
1. A Doctor gets out of medical shool, he is deeply in debt with student loans. Eventually,
He opens an office ( a business ). He must employ help, pay his bills, and make a decent living
In line with his level of education. He must make a profit ,
2. All Pharmaceutical companies must make profits to cover all expenses, pay shareholders dividends, and ( most importantly ) invest a large % of those profits into research for new anad improved
Drugs and procedures to improve the quality of life for all humanity.
3. You give an example of a company finding a drug that would complete cure diabetes. That is exactly what these companies are trying to do. Cure all diseases.
I do a lot of independent research into many young cutting edge drug companies. Their research is into
Curing disease like cancer. Such a breakthrough drug will make their shareholder rich.
4. There are a number of other type diseases that are limited to a relatively small number of people.
Since the market for drugs for these diseases are relatively small, pharmaceutical companies do not devote
Much research to these disease.
In short , no profit, no hospitals, no doctor's, no new breakthrough drugs. Without profits Civilization
Moves backwards not forward.

You correctly point out a number of problems. There are countries out there where doctors don't come out of medical school with huge loans. That even happens here. I had a cousin and the military paid his medical school tuition. He then spent 20 years in the military before "retiring" and opening his own private practice debt free.

As to drug companies, I know that R&D is incredibly expensive. This is a problem but one that can be solved, There are always researchers, both in private industry and universities, that are looking for cures. Why not subsidize those efforts and thereby decrease the cost of R&D.

There are problems but they are all solvable. I can't imagine any person, especially a proud American like yourself, who would back down from a problem just because the solution might be tough.

 

[Irish Duck]

Duck,
You make another point ( a complete impossibility ) " We should absolutely thane the profit out of health care ".
OK , Ler's try it :
1. A Doctor gets out of medical shool, he is deeply in debt with student loans. Eventually,
He opens an office ( a business ). He must employ help, pay his bills, and make a decent living
In line with his level of education. He must make a profit ,
2. All Pharmaceutical companies must make profits to cover all expenses, pay shareholders dividends, and ( most importantly ) invest a large % of those profits into research for new anad improved
Drugs and procedures to improve the quality of life for all humanity.
3. You give an example of a company finding a drug that would complete cure diabetes. That is exactly what these companies are trying to do. Cure all diseases.
I do a lot of independent research into many young cutting edge drug companies. Their research is into
Curing disease like cancer. Such a breakthrough drug will make their shareholder rich.
4. There are a number of other type diseases that are limited to a relatively small number of people.
Since the market for drugs for these diseases are relatively small, pharmaceutical companies do not devote
Much research to these disease.
In short , no profit, no hospitals, no doctor's, no new breakthrough drugs. Without profits Civilization
Moves backwards not forward.

You correctly point out a number of problems. There are countries out there where doctors don't come out of medical school with huge loans. That even happens here. I had a cousin and the military paid his medical school tuition. He then spent 20 years in the military before "retiring" and opening his own private practice debt free.

As to drug companies, I know that R&D is incredibly expensive. This is a problem but one that can be solved, There are always researchers, both in private industry and universities, that are looking for cures. Why not subsidize those efforts and thereby decrease the cost of R&D.

There are problems but they are all solvable, they just require creativity and, most importantly, the will to find the solutions. I can't imagine any person, especially a proud American like yourself, who would back down from a problem just because the solution might be tough.

 

[twalsh]

DIP, Obamacare may be unsustainable by why do the Rs have to replace it? Why not just fix it? Wouldn't that be the easiest and least expensive way to handle it.

I think that's just semantics. They are keeping parts of what the ACA did in place, but if they say "repeal and replace" the far righties feel better about it. The reality is they are trying to fix what's wrong or unsustainable with the ACA, and keep some parts that work.

The problem is, there are people who won't accept any change that looks like its going backwards on coverage, and that's not realistic. To get something that works, can last, and can be paid for, there's going to be some pain somewhere for someone.

 

[deadirishpoet]

DIP, Obamacare may be unsustainable by why do the Rs have to replace it? Why not just fix it? Wouldn't that be the easiest and least expensive way to handle it. By the way, the main reason that premiums are increasing is the uncertainty arising out of what the Rs will do and insurance companies hate uncertainty. If the government would agree to continue with Obamacare but with major modifications, much of the uncertainty would dissipate. Of course that won't happen because of partisan politics. The Rs simply can't stand to accept anything that the Dems and/or Obama did. Of course if the shoe were on the other foot, the Dems would be doing the same thing so I don't just blame the Rs. This is modern day politics and it stinks.

Finally, what jobs are coming back? Coal jobs are not coming back. Low skilled manufacturing jobs are not coming back. Companies will either still go overseas for low cost labor or will use robots to do manual labor. There will be new jobs in the service industries and for highly skilled workers but, of course, we don't invest in higher education in order to create highly skilled workers. Ah, what a world we live in.

There are still some sections of the ACA that are intact. Premiums are not going up because of what the Republicans are doing premiums were going up way before the last election.
Insurance companies love the ACA because it pays them off. President Obama went to bed with the insurance companies. And the insurance companies new the ACA was going to fail right after his term but they were getting paid guaranteed money almost like Insurance welfare
The Republicans accept the fact that the Democrats Rune a fifth of the economy.
President Trump invited the Democratic side to be a part of it.
It's funny though you want to bring that up considering President Obama told the Republicans it sitting back of the bus

You want to talk about unskilled jobs are not coming back, but you are an open border guy who wants to let in all the unskilled labor in. Speak about a recipe for disaster.
Companies will be coming back in when the corporate tax rate gets adjusted

Vocational schools have taken a beating because of Educational Funding that has been taken from them and put into social programming there are a lot of new but most of them need to be for young people in high school to learn a work ethic.

You know who needs to invest in the skilled worker.......?
The individual who wants to learn a skill.
Pick up a hammer pick up a wrench get good with him and you will earn a good living. Get behind a drill rig learn how to use it. Get your CDL and move this country. Volunteer for fire company and work your way into it. Put an application in for the police department. It's up to the individual to make it work and if it isn't where you're at? Go to where it is.

You can always pick up a rifle and stand on the wall
it doesn't pay as well but it builds character.

 

[Irish Duck]

There are still some sections of the ACA that are intact. Premiums are not going up because of what the Republicans are doing premiums were going up way before the last election.
Insurance companies love the ACA because it pays them off. President Obama went to bed with the insurance companies. And the insurance companies new the ACA was going to fail right after his term but they were getting paid guaranteed money almost like Insurance welfare
The Republicans accept the fact that the Democrats Rune a fifth of the economy.
President Trump invited the Democratic side to be a part of it.
It's funny though you want to bring that up considering President Obama told the Republicans it sitting back of the bus

You want to talk about unskilled jobs are not coming back, but you are an open border guy who wants to let in all the unskilled labor in. Speak about a recipe for disaster.
Companies will be coming back in when the corporate tax rate gets adjusted

Vocational schools have taken a beating because of Educational Funding that has been taken from them and put into social programming there are a lot of new but most of them need to be for young people in high school to learn a work ethic.

You know who needs to invest in the skilled worker.......?
The individual who wants to learn a skill.
Pick up a hammer pick up a wrench get good with him and you will earn a good living. Get behind a drill rig learn how to use it. Get your CDL and move this country. Volunteer for fire company and work your way into it. Put an application in for the police department. It's up to the individual to make it work and if it isn't where you're at? Go to where it is.

You can always pick up a rifle and stand on the wall
it doesn't pay as well but it builds character.

The first rule of any successful business is to invest in your employees. Help them with training; help them with continuing education; help them learn new skills. Why shouldn't our country invest similarly in its people? By the way, the CDL will be valueless in 20 years as trucks will be self-driving by then. There are limited jobs that will provide a good living with only a hammer or a wrench. I'm not denigrating blue collar jobs. There will always be jobs for plumbers, electricians, etc. I just don't see a future in low-skilled manufacturing.

 

[rgc7]

Duck,
I just checked out your references, one was from the Forbes one was quoting the World Health Organization ( may be biased towards a One World Viewpoint )
One they were asking me to subscribe, and one seemed to be in agreement with my point of view ?

Here is another point that I was trying to put together, but I had to run in and out a few times today.
1 All Socialized health care systems must be built on a solid foundation of Capitalism. That is the key point
And the solution to the problem. Call the system what you like, but RICH CAPITALISTIC countries have the
Best health care system, and the spill over effects lift the rest of World.
2. Western Europe was destroyed by World War 11. At that point ( with lots of aid from Uncle Sam ),
Those countries rebuilt their economies. They had FULL EMPLOYMENT.
3. A large number of the male population was killed during WWII , these people never entered into the
Socialized medical programs ( as our parents did when they reached old age ) and , therefore, never became
A " Drain " on the system.
In short, the overwhelming number of young people when the systems were established were fully employed and paid into the system.Lots of money going in, and a small fraction going out. That ratio is now changing rapidly. The population is getting old rapidly, Families are not having children like the post WWII
Parents had.
Demographics indicate that income going into these systems is declining, unemployment and other
Socialized benefits are increasing, and older people will need ever increasing health care.

The US system was founded pretty much on Employer based health care Insurance.
Here are statistics from the Kaiser Family Foundation based upon the Statistics from the Census Bureau
From 2014 - 2016.
Employer insurance: 49 %
Non group ( dependent children) 7%
Medicare 14%
Medicaid 20 %
Uninsured 9%
Other 2 %

In short, the backbone of our system is Employer Based. Grown the economy, create jobs,
Move more people ( except for old and disabled ) out of Medicare and Medicaid, out of non group,
And uninsured into employer insured.
" A rising tide lifts all boats ".
Capitalism is always the answer, Socialism is the real problem and can only succeed in a rising and growing economy.

 

[Irish Duck]

Duck,
I just checked out your references, one was from the Forbes one was quoting the World Health Organization ( may be biased towards a One World Viewpoint )
One they were asking me to subscribe, and one seemed to be in agreement with my point of view ?

Here is another point that I was trying to put together, but I had to run in and out a few times today.
1 All Socialized health care systems must be built on a solid foundation of Capitalism. That is the key point
And the solution to the problem. Call the system what you like, but RICH CAPITALISTIC countries have the
Best health care system, and the spill over effects lift the rest of World.
2. Western Europe was destroyed by World War 11. At that point ( with lots of aid from Uncle Sam ),
Those countries rebuilt their economies. They had FULL EMPLOYMENT.
3. A large number of the male population was killed during WWII , these people never entered into the
Socialized medical programs ( as our parents did when they reached old age ) and , therefore, never became
A " Drain " on the system.
In short, the overwhelming number of young people when the systems were established were fully employed and paid into the system.Lots of money going in, and a small fraction going out. That ratio is now changing rapidly. The population is getting old rapidly, Families are not having children like the post WWII
Parents had.
Demographics indicate that income going into these systems is declining, unemployment and other
Socialized benefits are increasing, and older people will need ever increasing pg care.

The US system was founded pretty much on Employer based health care Insurance.
Here are statistics from the Kaiser Family Foundation based upon the Statistics from the Census Bureau
From 2014 - 2016.
Employer insurance: 49 %
Non group ( dependent children) 7%
Medicare 14%
Medicaid 20 %
Uninsured 9%
Other 2 %

In short, our the backbone of our system is Employer Based. Grown the economy, create jobs,
Move more people ( except for old and disabled ) out of Medicare and Medicaid, out of non group,
And uninsured into employer insured.
" A rising tide lifts all boats ".
Capitalism is always the answer, Socialism is the real problem and can only succeed in a rising and growing economy.

Agree to disagree and always with great respect for you.

 

[deadirishpoet]

The first rule of any successful business is to invest in your employees. Help them with training; help them with continuing education; help them learn new skills. Why shouldn't our country invest similarly in its people? By the way, the CDL will be valueless in 20 years as trucks will be self-driving by then. There are limited jobs that will provide a good living with only a hammer or a wrench. I'm not denigrating blue collar jobs. There will always be jobs for plumbers, electricians, etc. I just don't see a future in low-skilled manufacturing.

I wouldn't call a plumber or a house framer low skilled.

Not every job out there we'll need a college degree.
A skilled trade will always be out there. It is up to the individual to get involved in a trade they like
I agree 100%the employees the company's best asset investing in your employee helps your business

You want the government to go out there and train somebody without any consequence to the government.
Tax money and investment in some bad people the government will take that all day long because it's guaranteed money
Who pays is the tax payer when money is spent on training someone who still just can't get it.
It's up to the individual not the government to go out there and better themselves.
A CDL will not be useless in 20 years.

 

[Telx1]

DIP, Obamacare may be unsustainable by why do the Rs have to replace it? Why not just fix it? Wouldn't that be the easiest and least expensive way to handle it. By the way, the main reason that premiums are increasing is the uncertainty arising out of what the Rs will do and insurance companies hate uncertainty. If the government would agree to continue with Obamacare but with major modifications, much of the uncertainty would dissipate. Of course that won't happen because of partisan politics. The Rs simply can't stand to accept anything that the Dems and/or Obama did. Of course if the shoe were on the other foot, the Dems would be doing the same thing so I don't just blame the Rs. This is modern day politics and it stinks.

Finally, what jobs are coming back? Coal jobs are not coming back. Low skilled manufacturing jobs are not coming back. Companies will either still go overseas for low cost labor or will use robots to do manual labor. There will be new jobs in the service industries and for highly skilled workers but, of course, we don't invest in higher education in order to create highly skilled workers. Ah, what a world we live in.

Good post. I would only add that Duck's example of profit being a negative influence on Executive decisions in the pharmaceutical industry ignores the most important consideration, and that is the impact of competition! Using his example, a CEO would be crazy to withhold a new curative drug solely to maximize profits from an inferior one. Competition is what keeps these guys focused on getting newer and better to market asap. It's not a monopoly as Duck's example would suggest. Each CEO is beholding to the shareholders and their goals are to maximize profits short term and long term, but they do so in a highly competitive field where new developments take place daily, and you damn well better bring new solutions to the market as soon as possible to keep or gain market share. I'm sure there are some examples of the kind of Executive decisions as Duck suggests, but I think the overarching impact of profits driven companies working in a very competitive market is a huge net positive.

 

[rgc7]

Agree to disagree and always with great respect for you.

 

[rgc7]

Duck,
Respect you as well and disagree as well !

 

[ndnd]

First, it is nice to see most threads not political. Maybe we are turning our attention to football. Finally

So apologies for this political post but in light of the bashing the current President has taken on this board, I give you some things to consider as the Dems backlash strategy seems to be a very bad mistake and is back firing on them

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban. Smacks down Appeals Courts who over reached their authority and exercised prejudice instead of constitutional prudence.

Meanwhile leading Dems say it is Obama who may have colluded with Russians as Obama was way to easy on Russia when he knew from FBI that Russia was interfering in election

Also Bernie Sanders wife under investigation by FBI for falsifying donations when she was President of Vermont college

Also the investigation into collusion with Russia by Trump admin taking abrupt turn against Dems as Loretta Lynch being investigated and Senate investigating Obama officials Susan Rice and others for illegal investigations on citizens


As someone would say -- "Huge. Nice"

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban
FALSE - it upheld 2 minor parts temporarily. Does not apply to those going to school in USA, those who have relatives here, those with job offers here. May hear his appeal in September after his Executive order expires. But to do that he will have to go through the lower courts once again.
Smacks down Appeals Courts who over reached their authority and exercised prejudice instead of constitutional prudence
False,see above.
Meanwhile leading Dems say it is Obama who may have colluded with Russians
FALSE,-- GOP says that,naturally. Dems say he was too timid in calling out interference,his motive ,he says, was to not influence election.
Also Bernie Sanders wife under investigation by FBI for falsifying donations when she was President of Vermont college
She used pledges made during fund raising to secure bank loan for school,unfortunately some pledges were not carried out. Investigation is to determine if she used due process in making sure the pledges were strong enough to count on.
abrupt turn against Dems as Loretta Lynch being investigated
True, it is about her asking Comey to use "matter" instead of "investigation" He stated she did not attempt to dissuade him from continuing his investigation of Hillary. She recused herself and testified that she would accept the recommendation of DOJ prosecutors. Different from Trump asking Comey to quit on Flynn.
Susan Rice and others for illegal investigations on citizens
FALSE- The White House claims that she "unmasked" private citizens illegally.Under the rules that apply to foreign-intelligence-collection, there is a presumption against revealing the names of American citizens. But there are significant loopholes: The names may be "unmasked" to other agencies if intelligence officials determine that knowing the identity of an American is necessary in order to understand and exploit the intelligence value of the information collected. Rice asked that the names be made available to other Intelligence Agencies to see if there was evidence of foreign illegal activity. The GOP is milking the misuse of the word "unmasking" to make it appear that she provided ther names of US citizens to the media.

Sounds like typical spin and deflect for political reasons.

More false statements from republican friends who can't win on the issues so they demonize their opponents so they don't have to discuss the facts
Trump is a constant lying corrupt piece of manure
who won't release his taxes associates with Russian crime bosses to get financing for his hotels . Dances with Arab Sheiks and criticizes our European friends and pulls out of a global warming treaty joining Syria
and Nicaragua as the only countries not in the agreement .And supports a health care bill that only 14 percent support and throws of 22 million poor folks to fend for themselves

 

[DublinND]

In the days before the election BO and Spouse campaigned in North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Michigan urging Dems to uphold his legacy.

Lost all 3.

There's a message in there somewhere.

Parallel universe! The Great Obama by every objective meaningful measure he left this country considerably weaker and more fractured racially, socially and politically. What he did well was speak from a teleprompter and become a transcendent political figure due to his rhetoric and the sad history of racial discrimination. His true appeal and success was purely symbolic with little substance. He was a blank canvas as a one term senator of 2 yrs who people continually deposited their hopes in because of the positive symbolism he represented. But never produced. Aided and protected by a compliant and obsequious liberal MSM. Who viewed their role as participants in doing anything necessary to help him succeed. Now that Trump s in they view it as their right and obligation to destroy Trump and his presidency. The concept of journalistic standards, objective truth, verified reportable facts and balance long since flushed down the toilet by the corporate media . I voted for Trump but that doesn't mean he enjoys my perpetual support. Problem is the media in this country can't be trusted and have become propaganda mills . It's become near impossible to analyze the Trump presidency and policies objectively due to the pathetic hysteria and disinformation campaign conducted by the MSM and Democratic party against him. Like the boy who cried wolf ...

 

[DublinND]

Reading the Forbes one those countries do not have the population the United States does. Nor do they have the foreign responsibilities as the United States does.

The poll is Apples to oranges.

Is smaller better? Maybe it needs to go to the States as the Constitution suggest if a governing power was to be involved

Exactly! States rights as enumerated in the Constitution. The foundation of the most successful experiment in self governance in human history. To liberals the US Constitution the guarantor of our liberties as citizens and the template for our prosperity is an obstacle and inconvenience. When is more government too much . For progressives that line is never drawn. Because there's always problems to be solved and social / economic " progress " to be advanced. No matter what freedoms are infringed and what government confiscation of personal property of others results. The natural end result being total socialism where the government controls everything and the vast majority live in poverty ie Venezuela. Socialism has never worked anywhere and it never stops until it becomes communism and all freedom is lost. The American free capitalist system backed by the rule of constitutional law has served this country quite well compared to the oft cited virtues of Europe. The proper role of the Federal Government is never discussed as each proposed government program erodes our individual liberty , self- governance and economic prosperity.

 

[Irish Duck]

Exactly! States rights as enumerated in the Constitution. The foundation of the most successful experiment in self governance in human history. To liberals the US Constitution the guarantor of our liberties as citizens and the template for our prosperity is an obstacle and inconvenience. When is more government too much . For progressives that line is never drawn. Because there's always problems to be solved and social / economic " progress " to be advanced. No matter what freedoms are infringed and what government confiscation of personal property of others results. The natural end result being total socialism where the government controls everything and the vast majority live in poverty ie Venezuela. Socialism has never worked anywhere and it never stops until it becomes communism and all freedom is lost. The American free capitalist system backed by the rule of constitutional law has served this country quite well compared to the oft cited virtues of Europe. The proper role of the Federal Government is never discussed as each proposed government program erodes our individual liberty , self- governance and economic prosperity.

Dublin, I'll ignore the obvious and erroneous generalities. We do agree that the Constitution was the foundation of the most successful experiment in self governance in human history. That does not mean that it is perfect. That does not mean that we can't do better. Remember, the Constitution acknowledged and permitted slavery.

Individual liberties are eroded on a consistent basis as technology increasingly dominates our day to day existence. The NSA spying on American citizens, as revealed by Edward Snowden, was a clear attempt to erode privacy and individual liberties. Out of curiosity, do you see Snowden as a hero or a traitor for revealing this program?

Too many people believe that socialism is completely evil and/or inherently defective. Like democracy, there are numerous types of socialism and not all have failed. By the way, communism is a precursor to socialism, not vice versa. In any event, China is a socialist country and it is clearly not failing. I'm not suggesting that we would want a government like China but saying that socialism "has never worked anywhere" is objectively inaccurate.

There are aspects of socialism that can be adopted and that would benefit our country. Some of these aspects have already been adopted, i.e., free education for K-12, etc. Why not take those aspects considered socialistic, such as expanding free education and universal healthcare, and see if they can work here. Maybe they can and maybe they can't but it would seem that they are at least worth trying. If the goal is to benefit people across the board, why wouldn't we want to try it. We all want our fellow citizens to be better educated and our children not to be saddled with ridiculous college debt. We all want our fellow citizens to get better healthcare without having to go bankrupt. Why don't we try something to achieve those goals. The ACA was an attempt but, at best, it was a half-hearted attempt and has serious flaws. I can acknowledge that. It did some great things and it did some things really poorly. Why not try and fix it so that we can provide better healthcare to more of our fellow citizens?

 

[DublinND]

Dublin, I'll ignore the obvious and erroneous generalities. We do agree that the Constitution was the foundation of the most successful experiment in self governance in human history. That does not mean that it is perfect. That does not mean that we can't do better. Remember, the Constitution acknowledged and permitted slavery.

Individual liberties are eroded on a consistent basis as technology increasingly dominates our day to day existence. The NSA spying on American citizens, as revealed by Edward Snowden, was a clear attempt to erode privacy and individual liberties. Out of curiosity, do you see Snowden as a hero or a traitor for revealing this program?

Too many people believe that socialism is completely evil and/or inherently defective. Like democracy, there are numerous types of socialism and not all have failed. By the way, communism is a precursor to socialism, not vice versa. In any event, China is a socialist country and it is clearly not failing. I'm not suggesting that we would want a government like China but saying that socialism "has never worked anywhere" is objectively inaccurate.

There are aspects of socialism that can be adopted and that would benefit our country. Some of these aspects have already been adopted, i.e., free education for K-12, etc. Why not take those aspects considered socialistic, such as expanding free education and universal healthcare, and see if they can work here. Maybe they can and maybe they can't but it would seem that they are at least worth trying. If the goal is to benefit people across the board, why wouldn't we want to try it. We all want our fellow citizens to be better educated and our children not to be saddled with ridiculous college debt. We all want our fellow citizens to get better healthcare without having to go bankrupt. Why don't we try something to achieve those goals. The ACA was an attempt but, at best, it was a half-hearted attempt and has serious flaws. I can acknowledge that. It did some great things and it did some things really poorly. Why not try and fix it so that we can provide better healthcare to more of our fellow citizens?

Why not ? Because it's not the role of government to provide universal health insurance . That's an individual responsibility. By your logic why shouldn't the Federal Government provide free housing to all citizens. Everybody deserves shelter and basic housing . Say a 2,000 Sq foot 3 bedroom 2 bath home for every family . That would be progress wouldn't it .... I'm agnostic on Snowden. I do think the US Patriot Act is the single most dangerous piece of legislation to the American people. And the creation of the NSA is pretext to invade the privacy of all Americans under the guise of keeping us safe . The law of history is power corrupts. The more power the government is ceded by the the people the more the government will abuse it. It's an inevitable result. That's why with all the inequities economic and social a more limited government is preferable to the utopian socialist experiment. I don't believe that overall the European social welfare state model compares favorably to the American free market limited government system. China is not a great example. They engage in forced abortions and infanticide on female babies . There is total censorship of the media and free speech is non existent relative to opposition to the ruling Communist party. Just curious would rather live in China or the USA?

 

[Irish Duck]

Why not ? Because it's not the role of government to provide universal health insurance . That's an individual responsibility. By your logic why shouldn't the Federal Government provide free housing to all citizens. Everybody deserves shelter and basic housing . Say a 2,000 Sq foot 3 bedroom 2 bath home for every family . That would be progress wouldn't it .... I'm agnostic on Snowden. I do think the US Patriot Act is the single most dangerous piece of legislation to the American people. And the creation of the NSA is pretext to invade the privacy of all Americans under the guise of keeping us safe . The law of history is power corrupts. The more power the government is ceded by the the people the more the government will abuse it. It's an inevitable result. That's why with all the inequities economic and social a more limited government is preferable to the utopian socialist experiment. I don't believe that overall the European social welfare state model compares favorably to the American free market limited government system. China is not a great example. They engage in forced abortions and infanticide on female babies . There is total censorship of the media and free speech is non existent relative to opposition to the ruling Communist party. Just curious would rather live in China or the USA?

Obviously I'd rather live in the US but the US can be greatly improved. You say that universal healthcare is not the "role of government." Why not? Isn't that a decision that should be made by the voters? I know that the American voters would not know vote for universal healthcare but if, at some point in the future, a majority of voters wanted it, would you still oppose it? At what point does the will of the majority subsume the will of the individual? If the Constitution isn't in play on this issue (and I don't think it is), would you oppose what a majority wants?

 

[Quest4Twelve]

Which one do you dispute?

Welcome to the party

innuendo and opinions don't always equate to facts.

 

[DublinND]

innuendo and opinions don't always equate to facts.

Nor does blind willful ignorance of the facts indicate reason . Other than a confirmation bias.

 

[DublinND]

Obviously I'd rather live in the US but the US can be greatly improved. You say that universal healthcare is not the "role of government." Why not? Isn't that a decision that should be made by the voters? I know that the American voters would not know vote for universal healthcare but if, at some point in the future, a majority of voters wanted it, would you still oppose it? At what point does the will of the majority subsume the will of the individual? If the Constitution isn't in play on this issue (and I don't think it is), would you oppose what a majority wants?

It's not a decision that should be made by the voters. We're a Republic not a direct democracy. Mob rule is something the founders of this country feared . That's why they created a system of checks and balances based on limited self- government. The tyranny of the majority to oppress the rights of individuals is why we have a constitutional framework to safeguard as is described in the Declaration of Independence the inaliable rights of all INDIVIDUAL Americans. Obamacare is a great example of the fallacy in your argument. The premise of Obamacare was to ostensibly redress an identified problem of access to care for the uninsured population. That population represented about 20 % of all Americans. For the other 80% the pre ACA health insurance / health services system was working fairly well. Now that the cure of Obamacare has been implemented the entire system is in a precipitous death spiral compromising the health care potentially for the 80% of the country who had functioning health insurance prior to the grand experiment of Obamacare. Is that progress to you?? I don't think spreading the misery and lowering the quality of life for the majority meets the test for progress . The cure is worse than the disease in this case . As in the Hipocractic oath " first do no harm".

 

[deadirishpoet]

innuendo and opinions don't always equate to facts.

Which one of them were lacking facts

 

[Irish Duck]

It's not a decision that should be made by the voters. We're a Republic not a direct democracy. Mob rule is something the founders of this country feared . That's why they created a system of checks and balances based on limited self- government. The tyranny of the majority to oppress the rights of individuals is why we have a constitutional framework to safeguard as is described in the Declaration of Independence the inaliable rights of all INDIVIDUAL Americans. Obamacare is a great example of the fallacy in your argument. The premise of Obamacare was to ostensibly redress an identified problem of access to care for the uninsured population. That population represented about 20 % of all Americans. For the other 80% the pre ACA health insurance / health services system was working fairly well. Now that the cure of Obamacare has been implemented the entire system is in a precipitous death spiral compromising the health care potentially for the 80% of the country who had functioning health insurance prior to the grand experiment of Obamacare. Is that progress to you?? I don't think spreading the misery and lowering the quality of life for the majority meets the test for progress . The cure is worse than the disease in this case . As in the Hipocractic oath " first do no harm".

Dublin, don't get lost on a technicality. I realize that the voters don't directly make this decision but, rather, indirectly through the election of their representatives. As to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they did not, initially, apply to ALL individual Americans. As mentioned before, the Constitution originally recognized and countenanced slavery. African Americans didn't get the legal "right" to vote until 1870 and, even then, had those rights restricted at least through 1965. Women did not get the right to vote until 1920.

The pre-Obamacare health system was a mess with millions of people uninsured and, more importantly, problems with pre-existing conditions and lifetime spending caps. I didn't have pre-existing conditions then but I sure do now and allowing states to waive restrictions on pre-existing conditions scares me.

What this all comes down to is why are people resistant to everyone being able to receive and afford healthcare? yes, it will be expensive and it will create a large government bureaucracy. If those are the only two issues, than we should discuss that. I have, however, seen too many people on this Board that oppose universal healthcare as being un-American or socialistic. The first two issues are logistical in nature and I'm confident that those problems can be addressed rationally. The other objection is more philosophical in nature and seems akin to "Hey, I got mine through a life of hard work. Why should this be handed to you?" That philosophy, while not unreasonable, seemingly fails to recognize that we aren't all created equal. Some people just have more skills than others. Some people have physical and/or mental conditions that restrict their ability to do it on their own. There is also a degree of luck that plays into everyones' lives. I have friends who are worth millions of dollars. Some of those friends are smarter than me and others aren't. Some of them work harder than me and others don't. The ones who aren't smarter and don't work harder but have still been hugely successful have been incredibly fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time.

That being said, I wouldn't trade my current life for that of any of my wealth friends. I have been incredibly fortunate to have a wonderful wife (for 33 years) and two great kids. While I wouldn't trade lives, I would certainly welcome some of their money.

 

[deadirishpoet]

Dublin, don't get lost on a technicality. I realize that the voters don't directly make this decision but, rather, indirectly through the election of their representatives. As to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they did not, initially, apply to ALL individual Americans. As mentioned before, the Constitution originally recognized and countenanced slavery. African Americans didn't get the legal "right" to vote until 1870 and, even then, had those rights restricted at least through 1965. Women did not get the right to vote until 1920.

The pre-Obamacare health system was a mess with millions of people uninsured and, more importantly, problems with pre-existing conditions and lifetime spending caps. I didn't have pre-existing conditions then but I sure do now and allowing states to waive restrictions on pre-existing conditions scares me.

What this all comes down to is why are people resistant to everyone being able to receive and afford healthcare? yes, it will be expensive and it will create a large government bureaucracy. If those are the only two issues, than we should discuss that. I have, however, seen too many people on this Board that oppose universal healthcare as being un-American or socialistic. The first two issues are logistical in nature and I'm confident that those problems can be addressed rationally. The other objection is more philosophical in nature and seems akin to "Hey, I got mine through a life of hard work. Why should this be handed to you?" That philosophy, while not unreasonable, seemingly fails to recognize that we aren't all created equal. Some people just have more skills than others. Some people have physical and/or mental conditions that restrict their ability to do it on their own. There is also a degree of luck that plays into everyones' lives. I have friends who are worth millions of dollars. Some of those friends are smarter than me and others aren't. Some of them work harder than me and others don't. The ones who aren't smarter and don't work harder but have still been hugely successful have been incredibly fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time.

That being said, I wouldn't trade my current life for that of any of my wealth friends. I have been incredibly fortunate to have a wonderful wife (for 33 years) and two great kids. While I wouldn't trade lives, I would certainly welcome some of their money.

Irish Duck

You seem to have answered your own question.
Single-payer healthcare is too expensive and we are a broke country it will take decades for us to settle our debt and that's only if we attack it immediately till then it cannot even be considered.
Bureaucracy. That is a loaded word.
Look at the EPA for example 80% of the EPA is nothing but paper pushers who make no policy decisions or anything that will help the environment.
Government-run Healthcare would dwarf EPA.

Pre ACA Medical was a hell of a lot better for me. I do understand pre-existing conditions needed to be addressed, and needs to be taken care of only because in the job market of today it is very difficult for an individual to remain at one job for 20 years/or retirement.

That is another unintended consequence of a higher corporate tax/NAFTA and moving all manufacturing out of the country

Congress stack the deck with the insurance companies limiting the number of empowering them in a sense.
That's where changes need to be done next.

President Obama had the right idea in regards to fixing the insurance companies but instead he went to bed with him and they ended up even richer. Guaranteed government money have not helped the medical industry or the educational one. Why is an aspirins $8 individually at hospitals for example.
Why have College tuitions all increased substantially the past couple decades


You are correct government-run Healthcare is unamerican. it is socialist. it is wrong.

Our forefathers guarded against this type of government in the Constitution and if there is going to be any type of government-run Healthcare it needs to be done through the states plain and simple end of story

Everybody is not the same this is very true. For those who can just never get it together for whatever reasons Charities have been established for that.
The more money that is taken from people through the government is less money being able to be given to charities. We are giving Nation probably the most giving Nation ever in the history of mankind.
We will not allow a fellow American fall on their face

individual charities have been replaced with corporate charities through lobbyists and such, and they have an endgame in mind which takes the oil charity definition out of the equation..

You now have that fake Indian Elizabeth Warner trying to push for single-payer right now and I assure you if this is the route the Democrats are going they will lose even more.

I'll say it again we are a broke Nation.
President Obama created more debt than all the presidents before him combined.
This debt affects every single American rich,middle class. and poor.
It affects how we can do business it affects retirement. It also has effects internationally. With China holding so much of our debt how do you expect us to deal with them?
The United States should never be in debt to anyone with the wealth of this country

This is not going to be an easy fix, nor do I believe it'll be fixed in my lifetime
But I assure you my children don't want federal health care and my grandchildren will not want federal health care.

 

[Telx1]

Dublin, don't get lost on a technicality. I realize that the voters don't directly make this decision but, rather, indirectly through the election of their representatives. As to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they did not, initially, apply to ALL individual Americans. As mentioned before, the Constitution originally recognized and countenanced slavery. African Americans didn't get the legal "right" to vote until 1870 and, even then, had those rights restricted at least through 1965. Women did not get the right to vote until 1920.

The pre-Obamacare health system was a mess with millions of people uninsured and, more importantly, problems with pre-existing conditions and lifetime spending caps. I didn't have pre-existing conditions then but I sure do now and allowing states to waive restrictions on pre-existing conditions scares me.

What this all comes down to is why are people resistant to everyone being able to receive and afford healthcare? yes, it will be expensive and it will create a large government bureaucracy. If those are the only two issues, than we should discuss that. I have, however, seen too many people on this Board that oppose universal healthcare as being un-American or socialistic. The first two issues are logistical in nature and I'm confident that those problems can be addressed rationally. The other objection is more philosophical in nature and seems akin to "Hey, I got mine through a life of hard work. Why should this be handed to you?" That philosophy, while not unreasonable, seemingly fails to recognize that we aren't all created equal. Some people just have more skills than others. Some people have physical and/or mental conditions that restrict their ability to do it on their own. There is also a degree of luck that plays into everyones' lives. I have friends who are worth millions of dollars. Some of those friends are smarter than me and others aren't. Some of them work harder than me and others don't. The ones who aren't smarter and don't work harder but have still been hugely successful have been incredibly fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time.

That being said, I wouldn't trade my current life for that of any of my wealth friends. I have been incredibly fortunate to have a wonderful wife (for 33 years) and two great kids. While I wouldn't trade lives, I would certainly welcome some of their money.

Duck and other like minded posters. We can beat the philosophical differences on this to death. I've expressed my bias along with everyone else here, but I am at least intellectually open to some form of universal healthcare if we can limit the role of the Fed government in the daily operation of same. There are numerous examples of universal healthcare to draw from, and I would welcome your thoughts on which one we should pattern ourselves after! I know using China as an example was largely hyperbole, as their government run universal healthcare is a joke in their rural areas, where a large number of the population still lives. Many countries have a bifurcated system where basic needs are met by government sponsored healthcare, but where better and quicker care is available through the private market, which clearly means the wealthy get superior care. Others like the Swiss use the private sector insurance companies to process and manage admin costs, while government dictates reimbursement schedules, etc... much like utilities in this country. At any rate, would welcome thoughts on preferred approaches and why. Takers?

 

[deadirishpoet]

Duck and other like minded posters. We can beat the philosophical differences on this to death. I've expressed my bias along with everyone else here, but I am at least intellectually open to some form of universal healthcare if we can limit the role of the Fed government in the daily operation of same. There are numerous examples of universal healthcare to draw from, and I would welcome your thoughts on which one we should pattern ourselves after! I know using China as an example was largely hyperbole, as their government run universal healthcare is a joke in their rural areas, where a large number of the population still lives. Many countries have a bifurcated system where basic needs are met by government sponsored healthcare, but where better and quicker care is available through the private market, which clearly means the wealthy get superior care. Others like the Swiss use the private sector insurance companies to process and manage admin costs, while government dictates reimbursement schedules, etc... much like utilities in this country. At any rate, would welcome thoughts on preferred approaches and why. Takers?

The minute you open the door to the federal government like a cancer they'll grow.
The federal government should in no way be involved in our Healthcare System
There is no such thing as a limited role by the federal level

 

[Telx1]

The minute you open the door to the federal government like a cancer they'll grow.
The federal government should in no way be involved in our Healthcare System
There is no such thing as a limited role by the federal level

DIP...I agree with your depiction of the insatiable appetite of our Fed government. Your statement that the minute we open the door to the Fed government playing a role in our healthcare frankly ignores the reality that this was opened decades ago. For all intent and purposes, both Medicare for seniors, and Medicaid for the poor, are large single payer government run healthcare systems which already serve 34% of our population based on the breakout rgc7 provided previously in this thread. if I had my choice, I would keep the employer driven healthcare insurance system in place, take care of the seniors through Medicare but put it on good financial ground by imposing co pays and premium hikes etc... the same for Medicaid for the poor, but would block grant this to the states to run in parallel with the welfare system...and I would offer a fully loaded and a bare bones single payer government option predicated on being 100% self funding, which individuals or employers can purchase. If employers and/or individuals find the government option more appealing, so be it; but, I don't think this option will ever be able to compete with private insurance offerings if forced to be fully self funded.

 

[rgc7]

Here is another development that must be factored into this debate. The States are also going broke !
How are they going to pay the people now ( as well as future ) on public pensions with health insurance a big part of those pensions ?
Social Security ( the lock box promise broken ) is now being paid by a Federal Government so deeply In debt, that the only way out is to take a " Three legged approach ": 1. To cut back waste , fraud, services, federal agencies, personel and benefits. 2. Debase the currency
to increase inflation in order to pay their bills and debts with a fiat currency that allows the Feds to pay back it's creditors with paper that becomes more and more worthless over time. 3. The most important leg, Grow the economy and increase jobs.
With more jobs and inflated wages, the tax revenue will increase rapidly, hopefully creating a surplus ( which I doubt because the Feds will just add more things to spend Money on ) thus
Paying the debt down.
However, just how do those " Liberal " states that are also "bankrupt" get back to solvency ?
Some years ago, an Italian friend told me that: " All Italians were millionaires ! " that was true
Because the Italian Currency was so inflated and debased , that a Pizza cost a few hundred Lira.
We are getting there , and that is our only way out of the mess we are in.

 

[deadirishpoet]

DIP...I agree with your depiction of the insatiable appetite of our Fed government. Your statement that the minute we open the door to the Fed government playing a role in our healthcare frankly ignores the reality that this was opened decades ago. For all intent and purposes, both Medicare for seniors, and Medicaid for the poor, are large single payer government run healthcare systems which already serve 34% of our population based on the breakout rgc7 provided previously in this thread. if I had my choice, I would keep the employer driven healthcare insurance system in place, take care of the seniors through Medicare but put it on good financial ground by imposing co pays and premium hikes etc... the same for Medicaid for the poor, but would block grant this to the states to run in parallel with the welfare system...and I would offer a fully loaded and a bare bones single payer government option predicated on being 100% self funding, which individuals or employers can purchase. If employers and/or individuals find the government option more appealing, so be it; but, I don't think this option will ever be able to compete with private insurance offerings if forced to be fully self funded.

I agree with a lot of what you've posted.
I should have been more clear I do know the government has a limited role now but it's not wholesale. So where it seems like I ignored the reality all I did was not state the obvious.
I'm not quite sure how self-funded single player would work, so would be hard for me to comment on it.
The self insured people are being affected the most.
This is where the focus needs to be on in regards to health care how to make it better for them without taking from us

 

[rgc7]

DIP...I agree with your depiction of the insatiable appetite of our Fed government. Your statement that the minute we open the door to the Fed government playing a role in our healthcare frankly ignores the reality that this was opened decades ago. For all intent and purposes, both Medicare for seniors, and Medicaid for the poor, are large single payer government run healthcare systems which already serve 34% of our population based on the breakout rgc7 provided previously in this thread. if I had my choice, I would keep the employer driven healthcare insurance system in place, take care of the seniors through Medicare but put it on good financial ground by imposing co pays and premium hikes etc... the same for Medicaid for the poor, but would block grant this to the states to run in parallel with the welfare system...and I would offer a fully loaded and a bare bones single payer government option predicated on being 100% self funding, which individuals or employers can purchase. If employers and/or individuals find the government option more appealing, so be it; but, I don't think this option will ever be able to compete with private insurance offerings if forced to be fully self funded.

Telx ,
BINGO !
That is what President Obama should have done as well as do away with "the pre existent
Conditions, and we would not be trying today to "clean up the mess " we are in.

 

[Telx1]

Telx ,
BINGO !
That is what President Obama should have done as well as do away with "the pre existent
Conditions, and we would not be trying today to "clean up the mess " we are in.

Pre existing conditions has become the litmus test and the Repubs are now singing the tune that this is essential. It's the one "benefit" or "right" that the Dems sold the American public as an essential right, and nearly everyone has embraced this. To my thinking, it's the one feature that has and will ruin the fundamental insurance model in a market economy. I would require Insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions, UNTIL their premiums for catastrophic healthcare coverage came down to a pre determined reasonable level. I would do it on a state by state basis, and once we proved that reasonable priced coverage was available, I would lift this requirement if the condition developed after reasonable priced insurance was available, and the individual opted not to have it. We have to get back to holding people accountable for decisions, and we have to provide a market incentive for healthy people to buy insurance.

 

[IRISHJD98]

The pre-Obamacare health system was a mess with millions of people uninsured and, more importantly, problems with pre-existing conditions and lifetime spending caps. I didn't have pre-existing conditions then but I sure do now and allowing states to waive restrictions on pre-existing conditions scares me.

In 2014, I went to the doc for the first time in 12 years. I was diagnosed with some seriously high-blood pressure (210/130). It turns out it had been a problem for a long time and caused an enlarged heart, congestive heart failure (30 percent function), and kidney damage. I was pretty sick. My heart function has fully recovered and my kidneys have slowly improved, but along the way I picked up an additional diagnosis of Afib.

I'm concerned about any waiver regarding preexisting conditions. Getting older sucks.

Side note: If you think you're perfectly healthy and never see the doc, get your blood pressure checked every once in a while - Even if you don't have insurance.

 

[deadirishpoet]

In 2014, I went to the doc for the first time in 12 years. I was diagnosed with some seriously high-blood pressure (210/130). It turns out it had been a problem for a long time and caused an enlarged heart, congestive heart failure (30 percent function), and kidney damage. I was pretty sick. My heart function has fully recovered and my kidneys have slowly improved, but along the way I picked up an additional diagnosis of Afib.

I'm concerned about any waiver regarding preexisting conditions. Getting older sucks.

Side note: If you think you're perfectly healthy and never see the doc, get your blood pressure checked every once in a while - Even if you don't have insurance.

Pre-existing conditions as stated in the post by Telx1 said it correctly. "Pre-existing conditions will be the lynice test" , and as I've posted with long-term job opportunities becoming Slimmer and slimmer pre-existing conditions due to age and other need to be figured out but I don't see it going anywhere.

Existing conditions are a cost for the insurance companies but at the same time the exciting insurance companies will need to brace themselves, while the federal government needs to allow for cross state line options.

Accountability is a must for each individual to take care of themselves. To this day at the age of 56 I lift 4 to 5 times a week even out of town (thank God for Anytime Fitness) mostly because I have a very physical job and working a physical job is not working out I run not as much as I used to probably 2 to 3 times a week.

Ever since I started working in the private Market 12(+) years I have not went to see the doctor one time. That's 12 plus years of paying premiums and never using them.
It's a shame it cannot carryover like unused data on your cell phon for the month.
I like the idea of a health savings account for younger healthy people

 

[rgc7]

My only experience with pre existing conditions took place some years ago. My father suffering with
Early Alzheimer's went to his doctor a checkup and the doctor discovered that he needed treatment
For a another medical problem and he had to go into the hospital for a few days.
The insurance forms were submitted ( I don't remember all the details ) because my mother who was also
Aged and in ill health was taking care of it.
In any case, she got a letter that the insurance Payment was denied because my father had " A Pre Existing Condition. It was not a new insurance but one my father had for a number of years. My mother than got a letter from the family doctor stating in no uncertain terms that
The condition was not pre existing.
This keep going on for a number of months before, I became aware of the situation.
Between my father deteriorating with his Alzheimer's and my mothers own health problem she was Also getting very sick.
I then got my daughter who is an attorney to write a letter to the insurance company telling them that She was going to file papers to sue them big time.
A few days later , we got a letter that the insurance would pay all the costs.

So ever since then this pre existent condition thing has been a sore point with me !
The aggravation that my mother was going through fighting with some bureaucrat
Was without exaggeration killing her before I became aware of it, and luckily we have
A family with a number of lawyers ! What do other old , sick, and helpless people do
Without legal help available to them ?

I can see it as a problem but it is a problem that will have to be worked out.

 

[deadirishpoet]

My only experience with pre existing conditions took place some years ago. My father suffering with
Early Alzheimer's went to his doctor a checkup and the doctor discovered that he needed treatment
For a another medical problem and he had to go into the hospital for a few days.
The insurance forms were submitted ( I don't remember all the details ) because my mother who was also
Aged and in ill health was taking care of it.
In any case, she got a letter that the insurance Payment was denied because my father had " A Pre Existing Condition. It was not a new insurance but one my father had for a number of years. My mother than got a letter from the family doctor stating in no uncertain terms that
The condition was not pre existing.
This keep going on for a number of months before, I became aware of the situation.
Between my father deteriorating with his Alzheimer's and my mothers own health problem she was Also getting very sick.
I then got my daughter who is an attorney to write a letter to the insurance company telling them that She was going to file papers to sue them big time.
A few days later , we got a letter that the insurance would pay all the costs.

So ever since then this pre existent condition thing has been a sore point with me !
The aggravation that my mother was going through fighting with some bureaucrat
Was without exaggeration killing her before I became aware of it, and luckily we have
A family with a number of lawyers ! What do other old , sick, and helpless people do
Without legal help available to them ?

I can see it as a problem but it is a problem that will have to be worked out.

First of all brother Im sorry to hear about this.

If Federal Healthcare single-payer whatever does become the law they will not be able to be sued as easily if at all

The bureaucracy you had to deal with would become a thousand times bigger with thousands of lawyers at disposal to fight their case
Your post clearly defined two issues

1st pre-existing conditions need to be worked in with insurance companies and what other entity to help pay for these without the cost to the taxpayer

2nd A federal health-care bureaucracy would be a thousand times more difficult to fight against.

 

[rgc7]

First of all brother Im sorry to hear about this.

If Federal Healthcare single-payer whatever does become the law they will not be able to be sued as easily if at all

The bureaucracy you had to deal with would become a thousand times bigger with thousands of lawyers at disposal to fight their case
Your post clearly defined two issues

1st pre-existing conditions need to be worked in with insurance companies and what other entity to help pay for these without the cost in taxpayer

2nd A federal health-care bureaucracy would be a thousand times more difficult to fight against.

M