How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[Okeefenokee]

Ceding some authority over extreme cases appears to be a byproduct of single-payer.

Your healthcare is already at the mercy of the insurance companies. This would just shift that overlordship to the government.

You're contradicting yourself. They had the money. You already excused the block as being not about the money. Don't try to go back to it now.

We weren't talking about this case, but about healthcare systems. Do try to keep up.

You're such a pathetic pathological liar. Yes the fuck you were talking about this case.

Ceding some authority over extreme cases appears to be a byproduct of single-payer.

It's in the quote that you quoted, typed by you, you fucking hairbrain.

It's the only case that's been talked about in this thread for the past ten pages. Yes, dipshit, this is the same fucking topic that you were talking about, when you decided to go back to your previous argument, before you got called out on your ignorance of the case, days ago, when it was pointed out to you that the family had gathered the funds to pay for the treatment themselves.

So, you try to go back to blaming it on funding, like you initially did, thinking no one would call you on it, again, like we did last time, and are doing again.

/bonghit nah man, I'm talking about something completely different now.

[Fife]

I've been saying that the argument that we either have to have either (1) some socialized Obamacare/single-payer variant, or (2) "healthcare" exactly as it existed just before Obamacare, is fallacious. This faulty argument presents and expects you to accept a False Dilemma.

An obscure math professor sets out a third way pretty well:

The Free Market versus Death Panels by Alpheus Madsen

Furthermore, the answer ignores the biggest problem with socialized medicine in all its forms — indeed, the problem that any government controlled resource has — the exact same problem that develops every time the Government steps in and tries to “fix” market forces: you get shortages and surpluses because bureaucratic meddlers cannot predict what people will want, or even what people need, or how people will respond to the price controls, incentives, and punishments they set up in their infinite lack of wisdom to provide health care to “all”.

The Free Market is the only way we can balance costs in a reasonable way. I want to go a step further, though, and make the case that the Free Market is the only moral way to address these issues as well.

. . .

Which is more humane? To have your life held at the mercy of the whims of Bureaucrats, who alone will determine your worth? Or to be free to make the case that you are worth something to everyone you can talk to, and if found wanting yesterday, nonetheless might find you worthwhile today? I will not answer this question directly, but I will simply suggest that you look at societies that embrace the former, and compare them to societies which embrace the latter, and then ask yourself: which type of society prospers more? And I would propose that you would then have your answer.

I urge you to read the whole thing, and argue against it, if you can.

[Fife]

Rand Paul introduces “Obamacare Repeal” act

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the “Obamacare Repeal” Act Tuesday night after saying that “conservatives are getting squat” from his Senate colleagues when it comes to health care reform, according to his Twitter account.

According to Paul, the bill, called the “Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017,” will be voted on Wednesday around noon.

The conservative senator has been fiercely opposed to the Senate health care bill, dubbing it “Obamacare-Lite” and consistently calling for a vote for a full repeal of Obamacare.

“There’s no promise of a clean repeal vote,” Paul said on “FOX & Friends.” “If they’re not even going to talk with conservatives, if we’re going to be excluded from the process, conservatives don’t need to participate in this pork fest.”

[The Conservative]

Maybe I'm wrong on this but while I generally agree with your premise, I think there can be a place for government interference in some instances. Child services, or whatever they're called, will seize a child from their parents in cases of abuse or whatever, atleast in California where I live. Tons of parents are shitty and abusive so there is a place in the argument somewhere for a government to act in the interests of the child over the natural rights of the parents, even if I think those cases should be extremely rare. I can think of one local story where the kid ended up dying because the government didn't act (pretty sure it was due to their incompetence rather than their unwillingness to get inbetween the parent and the child, but still). I haven't paid enough attention to know if this Charlie kid is one of those cases, but those cases certainly do exist I would think.

Not trying to get involved in this crazy debate, just offering a little pushback.

Anyway, Obamacare repeal incoming? Read something about the Senate having enough votes to begin debate on repeal? Whatever that means, should look into it more.

Even when there's a case where the state has to get involved to stop abuse, we should all view that as a negative, not a positive. If shit's so bad the state has to step in, it's nothing to be happy about.

If the state is stepping into the role as parent, something is wrong. Doesn't matter if it's a case of abuse, or nanny staters blocking parents from seeking treatment with their own cash.

Question for the board: who here sees child abuse as a positive?

Define child abuse in your mind...

[The Conservative]

GOP is stupid for taking responsibility of Obamacare, it's awful, it's failing, it's unsustainable........... the smart move was to get the hell out of the way and keep jabbing at the Dems to offer fixes to their shitty plan.

They need to take responsibility for it because the Democrats aren't. I would rather see them take it, own it, and then fix it than let another year go by and have it sink the majority of people deeper in debt.

[Okeefenokee]

Rand Paul introduces “Obamacare Repeal” act

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the “Obamacare Repeal” Act Tuesday night after saying that “conservatives are getting squat” from his Senate colleagues when it comes to health care reform, according to his Twitter account.

According to Paul, the bill, called the “Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017,” will be voted on Wednesday around noon.

The conservative senator has been fiercely opposed to the Senate health care bill, dubbing it “Obamacare-Lite” and consistently calling for a vote for a full repeal of Obamacare.

“There’s no promise of a clean repeal vote,” Paul said on “FOX & Friends.” “If they’re not even going to talk with conservatives, if we’re going to be excluded from the process, conservatives don’t need to participate in this pork fest.”

pork fest sounds fun, then sleepy.

[Fife]

You're not getting a "repeal" no matter which side you are on. So, either be happy or sad about it, just understand it's not happening. The "repeal" is coming, just not how you imagine it -- not as a legislative fantasy "repeal," but as a hard IRL "reboot."

Six Republicans Who Voted for Obamacare Repeal in 2015 Sank the 'Clean Repeal' Bill Today

After a comprehensive repeal-and-replace bill failed Tuesday night, senators voted Wednesday on a proposal to scrap most of Obamacare in two years, giving Congress a chance to work-up some sort of replacement. The so-called "repeal-and-delay," which had been pushed by conservative and libertarian members of the Senate, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, met the same fate.

With two defeats in as many days, Senate Republicans are running out of time to pass anything that could be considered a victory in their years-long quest to repeal Obamacare. Under the rules of the reconciliation process, the Senate can only debate the health care bill for 20 hours before embarking on a so-called vote-a-rama (probably sometime tomorrow) and then taking a final vote Friday on whatever bill emerges from that process.

It's a total mess.

[TheReal_ND]

Dilbert guy gooooooooo

[SuburbanFarmer]

So, speaking in generalities and sprinkling it with some obscure jargon is fun I guess. Yay Trump?

[Okeefenokee]

So, speaking in generalities and sprinkling it with some obscure jargon is fun I guess. Yay Trump?

what obscure jargon?