How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[K@th]

If your kid's life was on the line, how robust do you believe the safety​ net should be? What's the number, what's the math? This isn't an easy discussion, we're talking human lives.

That's my point.

Ultimately, I think we'll need death panels. Something like an apgar score to measure cost /reward.

There are parents who spend millions to get their premie baby through dozens of surgeries before he's a year old. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Is it worth it? I'd ask a conservative Christian who doesn't believe in socialized medicine that question. They might have the best answer to that. (I mean that.)

[StCapps]

You are arguing it the wrong way, and I'll have this discussion with you. If your kid's life was on the line, how robust do you believe the safety​ net should be? What's the number, what's the math? This isn't an easy discussion, we're talking human lives.

Stop appealing to emotion and an actual discussion can be had on how you want to structure your social safety net. Keep appealing to emotion and you are decreasing the chances that such a discussion will occur with you involved in it.

Capps, I don't need your advice.

You do if you ever want to actually discuss how robust you want the social safety net to be, if you insult everyone who disagrees with you and demonize them as wanting to watch people die in the streets, then you are never going have a good discussion on the topic, ever.

[Fife]

OK, I'm game. What is the ideology that is going to make state-managed "healthcare" "work?" And what are it's "flexible" points?

Not once in this thread have I ever claimed to know the answers. Do you know? Psst. I'm against state managed healthcare, personally. I thought you knew that?

I know what the answers are not. I know what I think is better than state ownership of our lives, and it comes as no surprise: http://www.ronpaul.com/health-care/

Which of these bullet points do you think are wrong? I think they all make for excellent discussion points; and are alternatives to the arguments centered around "federal control or dead people in the gutter."

If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual. ... More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices. ... Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner. ... Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. ... The tax code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100% tax credit for all medical expenses. ... Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. ... Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies. ... Long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term-life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time. ... The principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people to go to the grocery store. Obviously, that could not work. ... The cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed.
Early on medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration. ... Threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies. ... There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine. ... We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.

[K@th]

Universal Federal Public Option, private insurers cover what they can make a profit off of covering, the federal public option covers the shit they can't make a profit off of. That way both sides can do their job better. It's not rocket surgery, fixing Health Care isn't that complicated, it's only complicated because of entrenched special interests won't let you actually fix it because it cuts into their market share.

It's easy until you get to the details, which you are unwilling to discuss. Everything sounds nice until grandpa can't get his heart surgery but grandma can get her new knee. Medical care is a finite resource, which means everyone can't have everything. We have to pick and choose.

[Fife]

Well that's naive, because even playing the "dying in the streets" card, is going to lead people to think you are trying to make others feel guilty. Of course the answer lies between the two extremes, but neither extreme is on the table so when you bring it up the way that you did, it makes people think that you think they are these extremists. It's not hard to see, how they made that mistake.

Orly?

Did you think I was being a cold hearted bastard when I (on dozens and dozens of occasions) kept asking people exactly how much money they were willing to spend to give a dying man another hour, minute, second... ? I encourage people to pull on my heart strings about that, because the place I come back to is, no, another hour on a feeding tube for an unconscious man with no hope of recovery at the cost of $100,000 is not something I'm willing to do. I got accused of "death panels," back then. It gets so tiring, honestly, that you can't keep track if I'm a lefty or righty over time.

Capps - seriously, answer this simple question. How can we, as a society, figure out how we are going to do it, if we aren't even willing to ask what we are willing to do?

You are arguing it the wrong way, and I'll have this discussion with you. If your kid's life was on the line, how robust do you believe the safety​ net should be? What's the number, what's the math? This isn't an easy discussion, we're talking human lives.

Dan Carlin's oft-repeated "Instant Hitler" fallacy in regard to torture.

[StCapps]

It's easy until you get to the details, which you are unwilling to discuss. Everything sounds nice until grandpa can't get his heart surgery but grandma can get her new knee. Medical care is a finite resource, which means everyone can't have everything. We have to pick and choose.

Duh, but just because you have to pick and choose doesn't mean it's so complicated that you can't have a vastly better system than you currently do and for a whole lot cheaper. The issue is selling that system to the entrenched special interests benefiting from the current setup so they don't prevent such reform from being implemented, picking and choosing is a walk in the park compared to that.

You are putting the cart before the horse, we need a basic outline before we get into the real fine details, if you focus on the fine details before even the basic plan agreed upon by the special interests, than you'll never sell that plan to the special interests, they'll just divide and conquer like they always do.

[jediuser598]

Stop appealing to emotion and an actual discussion can be had on how you want to structure your social safety net. Keep appealing to emotion and you are decreasing the chances that such a discussion will occur with you involved in it.

Capps, I don't need your advice.

You do if you ever want to actually discuss how robust you want the social safety net to be, if you insult everyone who disagrees with you and demonize them as wanting to watch people die in the streets, then you are never going have a good discussion on the topic, ever.

Demonstrably untrue. This is an emotional subject by default. If you want to pretend that we aren't talking about human lives, go ahead, but the heart of this subject is, how much is your family member worth before you think that the government should pull the plug when you can't pay?

You can beat around the bush all you want and avoid the center, but don't fool yourself, that is the central question. These aren't easy discussions, but unlike you, I'm directly effected by this repeal, and so are many of my family members. This is not an abstract discussion for me.

[jediuser598]

Orly?

Did you think I was being a cold hearted bastard when I (on dozens and dozens of occasions) kept asking people exactly how much money they were willing to spend to give a dying man another hour, minute, second... ? I encourage people to pull on my heart strings about that, because the place I come back to is, no, another hour on a feeding tube for an unconscious man with no hope of recovery at the cost of $100,000 is not something I'm willing to do. I got accused of "death panels," back then. It gets so tiring, honestly, that you can't keep track if I'm a lefty or righty over time.

Capps - seriously, answer this simple question. How can we, as a society, figure out how we are going to do it, if we aren't even willing to ask what we are willing to do?

You are arguing it the wrong way, and I'll have this discussion with you. If your kid's life was on the line, how robust do you believe the safety​ net should be? What's the number, what's the math? This isn't an easy discussion, we're talking human lives.

Dan Carlin's oft-repeated "Instant Hitler" fallacy in regard to torture.

?

[Fife]

Article 1, Section 8. Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

Welfare: health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

Wrong. Obamacare didn't even pass the commerce clause test. It's Okie-dokie under the taxing power, member? I member.

[Speaker to Animals]

You're purity spiraling, Fife. We are not talking about what sounds nice or seems all neatly consistent. This is the real world.

I don't want poor people dying for lack of health insurance in my country. Neither do most other Americans.

I guarantee you that a Medicare for all option would be favored by most Americans. If Trump took up the cause, he could probably unseat half the freedom caucus in the midterms with primary challengers who do support it.

The let's just let people die approach is about as useful and meaningful as shit in a taco shell. Get real.