How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[heydaralon]

My only other idea is raising minimum wage to 45 dollars an hour so everyone can afford insurance. Problem solved!

[Martin Hash]

My only other idea is raising minimum wage to 45 dollars an hour so everyone can afford insurance. Problem solved!

You think you're being funny but that's a real argument from The Left.

[Martin Hash]

Okee - you're just a giant ass - trollin on me like that. Seriously, fuck you.

You completely reject my premise on one hand and then turn to the big kids and restate my exact premise using different words.

Assclown. Now Martin has to fire me so I can put you on ignore.

Okee was handballing me a couple weeks ago. I think sometimes he gets bored studying but can't quite break away enough to have a real debate.

[clubgop]

That's not my angle. When people argue against, say healthcare, they generally stick to the "other". When we argue the merits of healthcare safety net, we should argue as if it were our closest family member's life on the line.

Nope, you dont want that with terrorism, immigration, civil rights. There is no end to the fuckness. Welcome to Jedi's police and cradle to grave state.

[Okeefenokee]

Okee - you're just a giant ass - trollin on me like that. Seriously, fuck you.

You completely reject my premise on one hand and then turn to the big kids and restate my exact premise using different words.

Assclown. Now Martin has to fire me so I can put you on ignore.

It probably would have gone better if you didn't come out of the gate asking if it made me happy to see parents crying over their dead children.

Then you and jedi spent a half dozen pages talking about bodies in the streets.

I don't always have the inclination to get tangled up in that kind of hysteria.

[K@th]

It probably would have gone better if you didn't come out of the gate asking if it made me happy to see parents crying over their dead children.

Then you and jedi spent a half dozen pages talking about bodies in the streets.

I don't always have the inclination to get tangled up in that kind of hysteria.

Your misunderstanding of my post is probably my fault, but when I tell you I wasn't leading you to feel guilty, you should take me at my word. Everyone needs to have this conversation or we have no idea what we are funding.

And I never said people dying in the street. Those are your words.

All you had to do is say, "yes, we obviously have to pay for some of this shit." But, no, you pretended you had no interest in giving anything to the poor wrt health care. I was arguing from THAT pov. You have to see where people are starting from when trying to find common ground.

I once had this conversation on the DCF - it was being argued that government should pay any and all costs to keep a person alive as long as possible. That's when I went to the other extreme of $400,000 for an extra month of life...

I think this is the most important conversation, truthfully. We'll never agree on an approach if we don't agree on the goal.

A random goal of cheap healthcare for everyone! is not a goal. It's not even a dream. We should try to figure out how to do what we can actually accomplish.

Sheesh.

[Penner]

It's worse, really. The only reason for any insurer to cut rates would be competition, and in a number of states, there isn't any. Insurers have been bailing out of the marketplaces all over the map. So that leaves the chronically ill completely fucked.

How much longer are we going to run government policy based on the whims of private companies? Shit is getting weird.

No shit isn't getting weird but worse and worse. When things fail one party will just blame the other party and hope for the best. What we really need is a totally brand new system where it's a hybrid between private and government healthcare. Although, with the government healthcare there are always a group of people willing to destroy it to prove that government isn't the answer and/or to "starve the beast" so to speak.

[Okeefenokee]

Now, I could be wrong about this, but I think the vast majority of healthcare spending, the kind that is being used to keep someone alive, is going to old people. I'm not saying kill the old people.

I believe when its your time to go, its your time to go. But before we even get there, I know if people lived healthier lives a lot of this stuff would take care of itself, but I'm not a miracle worker. The type of healthcare that isn't the most common, healthy people in the prime of life needing life saving treatments or medication, wouldn't be as hard to fund if that was all we were funding with health insurance or medicare.

If you say that taking away funding for these treatments that keep people alive will result in them dying as a result, then it seems to me that what you're advocating is extending life beyond its natural span. Again, if you want to do that, fine, but I see it as being different than the other type of care that aims to preserve life that has been temporarily threatened with termination prematurely, and I place more importance on allowing people to live a full life.

Maybe separating the two and treating them differently would help, rather than having lifecare and oldcare coming out of the same pot, and in competition for funding.

[Speaker to Animals]

Now, I could be wrong about this, but I think the vast majority of healthcare spending, the kind that is being used to keep someone alive, is going to old people. I'm not saying kill the old people.

I believe when its your time to go, its your time to go. But before we even get there, I know if people lived healthier lives a lot of this stuff would take care of itself, but I'm not a miracle worker. The type of healthcare that isn't the most common, healthy people in the prime of life needing life saving treatments or medication, wouldn't be as hard to fund if that was all we were funding with health insurance or medicare.

If you say that taking away funding for these treatments that keep people alive will result in them dying as a result, then it seems to me that what you're advocating is extending life beyond its natural span. Again, if you want to do that, fine, but I see it as being different than the other type of care that aims to preserve life that has been temporarily threatened with termination prematurely, and I place more importance on allowing people to live a full life.

Maybe separating the two and treating them differently would help, rather than having lifecare and oldcare coming out of the same pot, and in competition for funding.

Most of the money goes to people with treatable longterm illness like diabetes and chronic pain. Stuff that strikes every age group. An illness like cancer can cost tens of thousands of dollars sometimes, but that's not really unmanageable. It's when you have to spend money each month for the next forty years that shit adds up.

[Penner]

Now, I could be wrong about this, but I think the vast majority of healthcare spending, the kind that is being used to keep someone alive, is going to old people. I'm not saying kill the old people.

I believe when its your time to go, its your time to go. But before we even get there, I know if people lived healthier lives a lot of this stuff would take care of itself, but I'm not a miracle worker. The type of healthcare that isn't the most common, healthy people in the prime of life needing life saving treatments or medication, wouldn't be as hard to fund if that was all we were funding with health insurance or medicare.

If you say that taking away funding for these treatments that keep people alive will result in them dying as a result, then it seems to me that what you're advocating is extending life beyond its natural span. Again, if you want to do that, fine, but I see it as being different than the other type of care that aims to preserve life that has been temporarily threatened with termination prematurely, and I place more importance on allowing people to live a full life.

Maybe separating the two and treating them differently would help, rather than having lifecare and oldcare coming out of the same pot, and in competition for funding.

Most of the money goes to people with treatable longterm illness like diabetes and chronic pain. Stuff that strikes every age group. An illness like cancer can cost tens of thousands of dollars sometimes, but that's not really unmanageable. It's when you have to spend money each month for the next forty years that shit adds up.

Also, let's not forget that once you get really sick (like needing chemo for cancer) you can't work and either getting back to work and/or finding work is hard as hell. Which in turns leads to decisions like, should this little bit of money go towards my rent/mortgage, food, or my cancer drugs?