How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[StCapps]

That's what they will want. If Trump pivots and supports a public option to pick up what the private market cannot, I guarantee most of the left will demand full socialized medicine in return.

I'm sure the Bernie Sanders crowd will want that for sure, but they are far from the majority, the extreme left is outnumbered big time. The socialists simply aren't going to win that battle as a result, they'll settle for the public option.
/shrugs

[jbird4049]

You guys are smarter than that right?

Did you note how many people voted for Obama and Clinton?

Implementing a public option is one thing, banning proper private options is something else entirely, especially in America. Gotta imagine you Yanks wouldn't put up with a complete government takeover of health care, considering y'all hyperventilate at the mere suggestion of any government involvement in health care as it is.

I've yet to see anyone in the United States suggest banning someone having private health insurance. That's something I would against. I'm sure there are some out there, but that is an extreme option especially for us.

[StCapps]

I've yet to see anyone in the United States suggest banning someone having private health insurance. That's something I would against. I'm sure there are some out there, but that is an extreme option especially for us.

Exactly there just aren't enough wacky socialists south of the border to pull off scrapping private health care options so the government can handle it all. I think y'all are pretty safe on this tip, not sure why StA is so worried.

I'm not too worried about it.

[K@th]

You shouldn't be too worried about people wanting too many hyper expensive medical procedures covered on the public dime, at least if you had a universal federal public option, the death panels will take care of that.

Huh? Not at all worried. Just explaining to Jedi why using "how would you treat mom," is bad for policy and budget. Can't/won't happen.

[StCapps]

Huh? Not at all worried. Just explaining to Jedi why using "how would you treat mom," is bad for policy and budget. Can't/won't happen.

Ah so like me, you are Kruger-like, not too worried about it. I don't think jedi will see sense in not viewing health care policy through a lens of that maximizes one's emotional response to the subject, he really does seem to be a lost cause.

[K@th]

Huh? Not at all worried. Just explaining to Jedi why using "how would you treat mom," is bad for policy and budget. Can't/won't happen.

Ah so like me, you are Kruger-like, not too worried about it. I don't think jedi will see sense in not viewing health care policy through a lens of that maximizes one's emotional response to the subject, he really does seem to be a lost cause.

It's not just Jedi. A lot of people believe that no expense should be spared. Literally death panels.

[StCapps]

It's not just Jedi. A lot of people believe that no expense should be spared. Literally death panels.

It's not that many people who think that no expense should be spared, they won't get their way legislatively anyway. America can't afford it, for one, and neither can any other nation. Financial reality stands in their way, so even if there was a lot them pushing that agenda and they had the political support to pass it, which they don't, then they still don't have the have the resources required to implement it.

Their feelz do not comport with reality.

[Speaker to Animals]

The problem is that, the way our government actually operates, there will be no universal predetermined amount. They will pick and choose. They likely will even go by affirmative action rules.

If you are going to do death panels, then just set the predetermined amount we will spend over some period of time. If your costs exceed that, then you need to come up with the additional funds or go to hospice. It should apply to everybody.

I don't have a problem with a private insurance system in which people who can afford very expensive treatments can get (maybe) a higher chance to add a few years to their life. But if we are talking about public funding, then everybody should get the same limit. Period. It should not be based on what some panel thinks of your quality of life if you survive. It should not depend upon anything but how much money was spent over some span of time. If you have a 20% chance to live if we spend twenty thousand dollars, fine. But you have to wait like five years before asking for major treatment for anything else. Maybe use those years getting a better-paying job to pay for health insurance that will cover future illness, then.

Personally, I think adopting this kind of health care model in a predominantly materialistic and atheist society is a recipe for bankruptcy. But whatever.

[StCapps]

Can't have a universal federal public option for health care and not have death panels. It's actually more expensive to do it the way you are currently doing it, it's cheaper to switch over.

[Speaker to Animals]

Can't have a universal federal public option for health care and not have death panels. It's actually more expensive to do it the way you are currently doing it, it's cheaper to switch over.

You have to realize that death panels will become weaponized in America. Like everything else. Imagine the same government that creates that family court system Alex Jones just encountered determining who gets to live or die.

I can't think of a way to make it right that does not involve just limiting it to a fixed amount for all enrollees.