|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:43 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Are you willing to pay 10k+ monthly premiums?
Because thats what your looking at when the mandate gets removed without cutting pre-existing condition support.
Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? And how much suffering is acceptable in the time it will take congress to fix it? Probably less than if we let this charade simply limp along to its final and unavoidable fate. This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on". I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it.
See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.
|
On November 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:16 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Its not passing the senate
You know it destroys the healthcare system right?
Its basically worse then the old 'repeal and dont replace' I'm at the point with healthcare where I'm in favor of pushing the system into crisis so that we get real reform. Obamacare is a disaster. Are you willing to pay 10k+ monthly premiums? Because thats what your looking at when the mandate gets removed without cutting pre-existing condition support. Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? What is the master plan that this action fits into so well? Getting a health care system that works. Step 1: Destroy the ACA Step 2: ? Step 3: A health care system that works. Mmmmk! Do you not get that the ACA is already a dead man walking? Congress is doing to have to act to replace it at some point. I'd just prefer it be sooner rather than later.
But its still better then what we had a decade ago and somehow survived all the time before that.
Chaos is total shit for everyone all.the time. We have federalism and reprsentative democracy to Avoid chaos at all.costs.
|
On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:43 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? And how much suffering is acceptable in the time it will take congress to fix it? Probably less than if we let this charade simply limp along to its final and unavoidable fate. This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on". I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.
Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.
|
On November 17 2017 07:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:16 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm at the point with healthcare where I'm in favor of pushing the system into crisis so that we get real reform. Obamacare is a disaster. Are you willing to pay 10k+ monthly premiums? Because thats what your looking at when the mandate gets removed without cutting pre-existing condition support. Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? What is the master plan that this action fits into so well? Getting a health care system that works. Step 1: Destroy the ACA Step 2: ? Step 3: A health care system that works. Mmmmk! Do you not get that the ACA is already a dead man walking? Congress is doing to have to act to replace it at some point. I'd just prefer it be sooner rather than later. But its still better then what we had a decade ago and somehow survived all the time before that. Chaos is total shit for everyone all.the time. We have federalism and reprsentative democracy to Avoid chaos at all.costs.
The ACA is better for some people -- namely those who could not get coverage previously. However, it is worse for everyone else.
|
I'm not that sure, but didn't you vote for the trump party? And now your against chaos?
.. does it hurt when you tell bullshit or don't you feel it anymore?
|
On November 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:16 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Its not passing the senate
You know it destroys the healthcare system right?
Its basically worse then the old 'repeal and dont replace' I'm at the point with healthcare where I'm in favor of pushing the system into crisis so that we get real reform. Obamacare is a disaster. Are you willing to pay 10k+ monthly premiums? Because thats what your looking at when the mandate gets removed without cutting pre-existing condition support. Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? What is the master plan that this action fits into so well? Getting a health care system that works. Step 1: Destroy the ACA Step 2: ? Step 3: A health care system that works. Mmmmk! Do you not get that the ACA is already a dead man walking? Congress is doing to have to act to replace it at some point. I'd just prefer it be sooner rather than later.
Nope - I do not get that.
|
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way.
|
On November 17 2017 07:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:16 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm at the point with healthcare where I'm in favor of pushing the system into crisis so that we get real reform. Obamacare is a disaster. Are you willing to pay 10k+ monthly premiums? Because thats what your looking at when the mandate gets removed without cutting pre-existing condition support. Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? What is the master plan that this action fits into so well? Getting a health care system that works. Step 1: Destroy the ACA Step 2: ? Step 3: A health care system that works. Mmmmk! Do you not get that the ACA is already a dead man walking? Congress is doing to have to act to replace it at some point. I'd just prefer it be sooner rather than later. Nope - I do not get that.
Well, you have some reading to do before you continue on with this conversation.
|
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:43 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy
100% of insured people will be sick.
I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? And how much suffering is acceptable in the time it will take congress to fix it? Probably less than if we let this charade simply limp along to its final and unavoidable fate. This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on". I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.
You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?
|
On November 17 2017 07:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:48 Sermokala wrote:On November 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Are you willing to pay 10k+ monthly premiums?
Because thats what your looking at when the mandate gets removed without cutting pre-existing condition support.
Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? What is the master plan that this action fits into so well? Getting a health care system that works. Step 1: Destroy the ACA Step 2: ? Step 3: A health care system that works. Mmmmk! Do you not get that the ACA is already a dead man walking? Congress is doing to have to act to replace it at some point. I'd just prefer it be sooner rather than later. But its still better then what we had a decade ago and somehow survived all the time before that. Chaos is total shit for everyone all.the time. We have federalism and reprsentative democracy to Avoid chaos at all.costs. The ACA is better for some people -- namely those who could not get coverage previously. However, it is worse for everyone else.
It's rough for those who have the mandate but do not qualify for a subsidy. That's not a large segment of the pop.
|
On November 17 2017 07:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:48 Sermokala wrote:On November 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Are you willing to pay 10k+ monthly premiums?
Because thats what your looking at when the mandate gets removed without cutting pre-existing condition support.
Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? What is the master plan that this action fits into so well? Getting a health care system that works. Step 1: Destroy the ACA Step 2: ? Step 3: A health care system that works. Mmmmk! Do you not get that the ACA is already a dead man walking? Congress is doing to have to act to replace it at some point. I'd just prefer it be sooner rather than later. But its still better then what we had a decade ago and somehow survived all the time before that. Chaos is total shit for everyone all.the time. We have federalism and reprsentative democracy to Avoid chaos at all.costs. The ACA is better for some people -- namely those who could not get coverage previously. However, it is worse for everyone else.
It's literally just better. The only people that are worse off are because of their republican state goverents refusing to work. You are just objectively wrong.
|
On November 17 2017 07:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:51 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 Sermokala wrote:On November 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? What is the master plan that this action fits into so well? Getting a health care system that works. Step 1: Destroy the ACA Step 2: ? Step 3: A health care system that works. Mmmmk! Do you not get that the ACA is already a dead man walking? Congress is doing to have to act to replace it at some point. I'd just prefer it be sooner rather than later. But its still better then what we had a decade ago and somehow survived all the time before that. Chaos is total shit for everyone all.the time. We have federalism and reprsentative democracy to Avoid chaos at all.costs. The ACA is better for some people -- namely those who could not get coverage previously. However, it is worse for everyone else. It's rough for those who have the mandate but do not qualify for a subsidy. That's not a large segment of the pop.
This is called the Medicaid gap and pretty much only exists because some state governments for politically-motivated reasons decided not to expand Medicaid.
And due to Trump pulling dumb shit with the CSR subsidies, the other subsidies actually shot way up so many plans are essentially free. But that's another story.
|
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:43 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? And how much suffering is acceptable in the time it will take congress to fix it? Probably less than if we let this charade simply limp along to its final and unavoidable fate. This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on". I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?
Yep. How do you think health insurance and health care works, regardless of whether it is privatized or government-run? What do you think a "death panel" is? If you don't understand the fundamental truth that society cannot pay for everyone to receive all of the treatment that they need, and that decisions are always made to ration care, resulting in individuals being denied coverage for care that they need, then you really shouldn't be discussing health care policy at all.
|
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.
On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:43 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
And how much suffering is acceptable in the time it will take congress to fix it? Probably less than if we let this charade simply limp along to its final and unavoidable fate. This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on". I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is?
A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.
|
On November 17 2017 07:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:48 Sermokala wrote:On November 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Are you willing to pay 10k+ monthly premiums?
Because thats what your looking at when the mandate gets removed without cutting pre-existing condition support.
Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? What is the master plan that this action fits into so well? Getting a health care system that works. Step 1: Destroy the ACA Step 2: ? Step 3: A health care system that works. Mmmmk! Do you not get that the ACA is already a dead man walking? Congress is doing to have to act to replace it at some point. I'd just prefer it be sooner rather than later. But its still better then what we had a decade ago and somehow survived all the time before that. Chaos is total shit for everyone all.the time. We have federalism and reprsentative democracy to Avoid chaos at all.costs. The ACA is better for some people -- namely those who could not get coverage previously. However, it is worse for everyone else.
Are you essentially saying that you don’t want to pay a bit more so that the guy less fortunate than you can get help when he gets cancer?
|
On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:43 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
And how much suffering is acceptable in the time it will take congress to fix it? Probably less than if we let this charade simply limp along to its final and unavoidable fate. This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on". I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? Yep. How do you think health insurance and health care works, regardless of whether it is privatized or government-run? What do you think a "death panel" is? If you don't understand the fundamental truth that society cannot pay for everyone to receive all of the treatment that they need, and that decisions are always made to ration care, resulting in individuals being denied coverage for care that they need, then you really shouldn't be discussing health care policy at all.
Yet Republicans on the hill keep talking 
That's why we had "death panels". Because they refused to admit we already had them and they were a bunch of lawyers and assholes on yachts. Of course they made their minions actually have the heartbreaking conversations and write the letters telling people they had to die or their boss couldn't get that new helicopter.
|
On November 17 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:45 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Are you willing to pay 10k+ monthly premiums?
Because thats what your looking at when the mandate gets removed without cutting pre-existing condition support.
Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? What is the master plan that this action fits into so well? Getting a health care system that works. Step 1: Destroy the ACA Step 2: ? Step 3: A health care system that works. Mmmmk! Do you not get that the ACA is already a dead man walking? Congress is doing to have to act to replace it at some point. I'd just prefer it be sooner rather than later. They could like......fix it. Address the problems. Like update laws and adjust the parts that don't work. There is no fixing it. It's garbage from the foundation up.
You're just being hyperbolic. You aren't supporting anything you're saying.
|
On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way.
It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control.
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way. It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control.
The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it.
|
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:45 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Probably less than if we let this charade simply limp along to its final and unavoidable fate. This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on". I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.
Definitely not a myth, buddy.
Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
