Maybe now is the right time to organize

[dmac1]

Where are you willing to stop having the government provide you with services? Should the government oversee and service your grocery shopping? entertainment? utilities? ad infinitum, ad nauseam....

Personal responsibility is what separates Conservatives from Liberals. Teach the skills needed to make proper life choices, not provide and then dictate control over them.

Where do you want to stop, and what makes your decision any better????? The constitution states that the purpose of the constitution is to promote the general welfare. If you think that general welfare of the population doesn't include health, you are dimmer that I ever believed.
Healthcare is a basic need, and if parents didn't provide health care for their children you would call it a crime. And yes, if someone can't provide for themselves, a basic supply of food is a rather christian thing to do and it is the people who ALWAYS claim that we are a 'christian nation, founded in christ" who are the very first to scream loudly like little babies when they are asked for help.

 

[59 Dano]

Those on the right oppose common sense because they fear 'socialism' even though public roads, public policing, 'national' defense, the FDA, the USDA, and on and on, including publicly funded FIRE DEPARTMENTS, are already 'socialist.' They never have an answer for why public roads are okay, or the rest, but not publicly funded healthcare. It really comes down to one of two things- stupidity for the average middle class, or greed from the wealthy.

It comes down to the ability to do math:

We are paying a ridiculous amount now, and reforming the system would clear up enough so that total costs would remain about the same.

Reforming the system would, by your own account, raise taxes on most people without providing them a corresponding benefit. To the contrary, it would add demand that is already strained and drive up prices that are already high.

Why would anyone in his right mind agree to pay more to get less?????

 

[59 Dano]

Where do you want to stop, and what makes your decision any better????? The constitution states that the purpose of the constitution is to promote the general welfare. If you think that general welfare of the population doesn't include health, you are dimmer that I ever believed.

If your stupid logic made any sense at all, someone would have filed suit against some level of government by now with the argument that the government owes them health care and they would have won.

Not even the moonbat left is dumb enough to make such a ridiculous argument.

 

[dmac1]

Interesting. How much money can you make from not providing care?

Interesting that a clown who cries about paying taxes to help provide care can't see that the greed is in the refusal to help. There are millions of people willing to provide care, the problem is not making money from "not providing care." Again you dump in more nonsense because you don't like the points that successfully counter you one argument that greed is more important than helping the poor. And when it comes to healthcare, anyone making less than $100k per year can be poor pretty quickly.

 

[59 Dano]

Again you dump in more nonsense because you don't like the points that successfully counter you one argument that greed is more important than helping the poor.

You've got people lined up out the door willing and able to pay for care. Serving your customers is not greed. Maybe your use of the abstract notion of "greed" is just your inability to understand basic economic concepts.

 

[bacha29]

So, liberals are the 18 year olds that are afraid to go out into the cold dark world and carve their own destiny, preferring the warmth of their parent's basement.

Got it.

When you start blaming 18 year old's for all you believe to be wrong with the world labeling them all as evil. communist sympathizing pinko liberals you seem to have overlooked the fact that there are a lot of 18 year old's in the military, manning the volunteer fire stations, taking car of the elderly and chances are one of them will at some point in time be taking care of you. Unfortunately given your ever increasing paranoia they won't be able to do much about that.

 

[bacha29]

You've got people lined up out the door willing and able to pay for care. Serving your customers is not greed. Maybe your use of the abstract notion of "greed" is just your inability to understand basic economic concepts.

And how many of those you describe as "willing and able to pay for care" are now able to do so thanks to the ACA? In fact thanks to the ACA 20 million Americans now have a way to pay for their care.

 

[Fred's Myth]

When you start blaming 18 year old's for all you believe to be wrong with the world labeling them all as evil. communist sympathizing pinko liberals you seem to have overlooked the fact that there are a lot of 18 year old's in the military, manning the volunteer fire stations, taking car of the elderly and chances are one of them will at some point in time be taking care of you. Unfortunately given your ever increasing paranoia they won't be able to do much about that.

Those with the comprehension greater than that of a chimpanzee can read that my comment was restricted to a specific segment of 18 year olds.

 

[bacha29]

Those with the comprehension greater than that of a can read that my comment was restricted to a specific segment of 18 year olds.

And just what % of 18 year old's comprise the type of individual you described? And what % of older Americans are angry old curmudgeons such as yourself?

 

[59 Dano]

And how many of those you describe as "willing and able to pay for care" are now able to do so thanks to the ACA? In fact thanks to the ACA 20 million Americans now have a way to pay for their care.

If only the deductibles weren't so high.

 

[bacha29]

If only the deductibles weren't so high.

The lower the deductibles..... the higher the premiums.

 

[Fred's Myth]

The lower the deductibles..... the higher the premiums.

You’re catching on to the Catch-22!

 

[dmac1]

If only the deductibles weren't so high.

This is what I mean about ignorance. Most medical care under the ACA is NOT even subject to the deductible, and the deductible is a cap, unlike previous to the ACA, when you had to meet your deductible, and even after meeting your annual deductible you still faced massive 'co-insurance' for major issues. That fact is what reduced medical bankruptcies with total bankruptcies in the US falling by 700.000 after the ACA was enacted.

Saying that deductibles are too high is just dumb when MOST care isn't subject to the deductible. Just pure ignorance, based on not having the facts, maybe even willful ignorance by refusing to listen to facts you disagree with, or refusing to listen to news sources you have been told are 'fake news.'

 

[dmac1]

You’re catching on to the Catch-22!

Max out of pocket is capped in either case. Unlike prior to the ACA. And the majority of people qualify for premium help, and the poor get premiums as low as $4 with ZERO deductible and ZERO copays, keeping the population healthier. Lying to those people about high deductibles is immoral at best, because fear of costs could make them avoid care that might have cost nothing. Letting a condition worsen out of fear of costs can cost tax payers hundreds of thousands if that person goes on disability when a $1 prescription for metformin could have saved an amputation, or kept them from needing insulin for another couple decades. Spreading misinformation about 'high deductibles' is sick.

 

[bacha29]

Max out of pocket is capped in either case. Unlike prior to the ACA. And the majority of people qualify for premium help, and the poor get premiums as low as $4 with ZERO deductible and ZERO copays, keeping the population healthier. Lying to those people about high deductibles is immoral at best, because fear of costs could make them avoid care that might have cost nothing. Letting a condition worsen out of fear of costs can cost tax payers hundreds of thousands if that person goes on disability when a $1 prescription for metformin could have saved an amputation, or kept them from needing insulin for another couple decades. Spreading misinformation about 'high deductibles' is sick.

Spot on. The ACA was multi faceted but prevention and early diagnosis was first and foremost. ER care is by far the most expensive form of healthcare. people coming into ER's damn near dead with a half a dozen different critical stage ailments that could have been easily and cheaply treated months earlier.

Fred's Myth lives in a state that stubbornly refused to get into the ACA. Now it finds itself a state where 1 of every 5 state residents has no health insurance along with being among the leading states in terms of the number of healthcare facility closures. In addition the ACA was the first meaningful attempt to bring nationwide regulation of insurers including it's discriminatory practice of denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions which everyone eventually experiences.

He still seems to think that the only way to bring down costs is to provide coverage to only the healthiest and provide care to only those with assets and or personal wealth sufficient to assure payment.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Spot on. The ACA was multi faceted but prevention and early diagnosis was first and foremost. ER care is by far the most expensive form of healthcare. people coming into ER's damn near dead with a half a dozen different critical stage ailments that could have been easily and cheaply treated months earlier.

Fred's Myth lives in a state that stubbornly refused to get into the ACA. Now it finds itself a state where 1 of every 5 state residents has no health insurance along with being among the leading states in terms of the number of healthcare facility closures. In addition the ACA was the first meaningful attempt to bring nationwide regulation of insurers including it's discriminatory practice of denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions which everyone eventually experiences.

He still seems to think that the only way to bring down costs is to provide coverage to only the healthiest and provide care to only those with assets and or personal wealth sufficient to assure payment.

You demonstrate that you are clueless when it comes to what I think.

My position (again) is that a minimum standard of care should be established, and that health insurance premiums should be based on full coverage of that minimum standard. Then apples (premiums) can be compared to apples.
Insurance covering experimental and (outrageously) expensive procedures beyond the minimum standard can then be obtained at additional cost, or paid for out of pocket.

My position bears no resemblance to your assertions.

 

[59 Dano]

This is what I mean about ignorance. Most medical care under the ACA is NOT even subject to the deductible, and the deductible is a cap, unlike previous to the ACA, when you had to meet your deductible, and even after meeting your annual deductible you still faced massive 'co-insurance' for major issues. That fact is what reduced medical bankruptcies with total bankruptcies in the US falling by 700.000 after the ACA was enacted.

Saying that deductibles are too high is just dumb when MOST care isn't subject to the deductible. Just pure ignorance, based on not having the facts, maybe even willful ignorance by refusing to listen to facts you disagree with, or refusing to listen to news sources you have been told are 'fake news.'

I like your reasoning that deductibles don't matter because you like the ACA.

 

[59 Dano]

Max out of pocket is capped in either case. Unlike prior to the ACA. And the majority of people qualify for premium help, and the poor get premiums as low as $4 with ZERO deductible and ZERO copays, keeping the population healthier.

In theory.

 

[59 Dano]

Spot on. The ACA was multi faceted but prevention and early diagnosis was first and foremost. ER care is by far the most expensive form of healthcare. people coming into ER's damn near dead with a half a dozen different critical stage ailments that could have been easily and cheaply treated months earlier.

Many of them on Medicaid plans with access to preventive care that they didn't use. I don't think you realize that many poor people don't care about their health. There's a good reason for that: people who don't care about their health or take proper care of themselves don't seem to make the effort to manage their lives/careers properly, either.

He still seems to think that the only way to bring down costs is to provide coverage to only the healthiest and provide care to only those with assets and or personal wealth sufficient to assure payment.

OK, we have the ACA. Why do costs keep rising?

 

[bacha29]

You demonstrate that you are clueless when it comes to what I think.

My position (again) is that a minimum standard of care should be established, and that health insurance premiums should be based on full coverage of that minimum standard. Then apples (premiums) can be compared to apples.
Insurance covering experimental and (outrageously) expensive procedures beyond the minimum standard can then be obtained at additional cost, or paid for out of pocket.

My position bears no resemblance to your assertions.

If the procedures you need to live costs more than this minimum level of coverage you promote will provide and you have no way to personally pay for it and you will die if you don't it , you are completely willing to accept that outcome? LMAO. You most definitely will want that procedure especially if some rich guy who needs the same procedure can pay for it and live while you die.