Maybe now is the right time to organize

[Fred's Myth]

Any care necessary to maintain life should be covered for all. VERY VERY few people would need outrageously expensive care. If more people were shopping for 'expensive' care because insurance covered it, competition for customers would drive down prices for some of the ridiculously expensive treatment, and if people had easy cheap care to preventative care, the number of people needing expensive treatment for common ailments would go down. Something like colon cancer deaths could be almost eliminated, and type II diabetes would be caught at the start. The money saved from those and similar problems could pay for a lot of people to get the 'expensive' care that greedy selfish unchristian hypocritical stupid Trumpies want dead.

Never said that. I don't believe that forcing women to carry another person around inside them something I should decide. Paying for medical to save a life and whether you can force a woman to support someone inside her are not the same issue. That is just plain dumb.

That makes you a liar, because of your earlier statement.

 

[59 Dano]

Was there a time when costs weren’t rising?

Not that I'm aware of, but the ACA was supposed to do something about the rising cost of health care and the average family was supposed to save some nice fat amount each year.

 

[It will be fine]

Not that I'm aware of, but the ACA was supposed to do something about the rising cost of health care and the average family was supposed to save some nice fat amount each year.

Before the ACA it was common for my individual premiums to double annually. Afterwards not so much.

 

[59 Dano]

Poor people don't care about their health huh? Got any data to support that assumption? I would be more inclined to think that it's more a case of not having the money so they put off going to a doctor until they are on death's doorstep . And in the end they show up at the ER with conditions that could have been treated much earlier much more effectively and at a much lower cost to Medicaid who in the end becomes the payer of the last resort.

And it's hard to swing a dead cat without hitting a courier who delivers medical supplies to at least one person on his route who isn't some lardass smoker.

Why don't you join us in the 21st century? The data for the last 20 years is that people are getting fatter and more sedentary. Guess which income demographic is fattest and most sedentary?

 

[59 Dano]

MORE stupidity!!!!! Everyone in the country benefits from a healthy population. And if the wealthy need to pay 2% more in taxes, or lose some deductions that are ONLY available to the wealthy, and get healthier employees with reduced costs for sick leave and disability claims, they benefit in even more ways. Saying there is no benefit for those who might pay higher taxes is just more ignorance coming from the same ignorant crowd.

There has yet to be a published study that I'm aware of that even offers up that what you're screaming about as a reasonable hypothesis.

You're using alleged health benefits as an excuse for whatever dumb tax policies you favor.

 

[59 Dano]

So you want insurance to reimburse the woman for housing and feeding, and the physical pain, and stress and all the physical changes her body goes through as a result of being required to carry a clump of cells or a fetus to birth? Who gave you the right to force someone to give up their body and potentially their life to help someone else survive????

The same people who told me I have to pay for the food for a household of able-bodied freeloaders because the losers will die of starvation otherwise.

 

[59 Dano]

I see why some of you are only capable of delivering boxes. Your thinking stops at the lowest level, maybe not even leaving the ground floor. And when found out to be stuck on the ground floor, instead of stopping there, you end up pushing the down button on your thinking and sink even lower, making ridiculous arguments easily countered, so then you come back with something even more ridiculous. Going from a phony claim that deductibles that don't even apply to most care, to saying that the uninsured actually save hospitals money, to saying that having insurance and Roe v Wade are somehow related just proves over and over how far people will twist themselves into exposing their ignorance when they are part of a cult- a cult of ignorance. And they cult leader is actually proud of the ignorance of his followers, and his ignorant followers love him more for supporting and loving their ignorance!!!!!!! And they don't even question why their leader likes ignorant people, even more amazing!!!!!!!!!!

Your inability to make a clear and reasonable argument is not our problem. It's probably just a case of you being an ACA fanboi who lacks critical thinking skills. After all, one of the architects of the ACA admitted that it was built on lies so dopes like you would get excited about it.

 

[59 Dano]

Before the ACA it was common for my individual premiums to double annually. Afterwards not so much.

My benefits were reduced and my deductible increased, which was a goal of the ACA.

 

[bacha29]

And it's hard to swing a dead without hitting a courier who delivers medical supplies to at least one person on his route who isn't some lardass smoker.

Why don't you join us in the 21st century? The data for the last 20 years is that people are getting fatter and more sedentary. Guess which income demographic is fattest and most sedentary?

Granted, you did have to get in better physical shape before you could go crawling back to Fat Freddy. And I'm sure that sitting in an chair staring into that little box on your desk does wonders to keep you in shape.

You guys can whine all you want but one fact remains. Only strictly privately owned hospitals can refuse care because they are not network providers and do not accept public funding support and how many of those are currently in operation nationwide?

So as long as you continue to go to nonprofit publicly supported healthcare facilities for care that facility will not deny care on the basis of the patients ability to pay. If you don't like that fact then you are completely free to go to a privately owned facility.....and don't forget to bring your checkbook with you because they ain't going to accept your cheap as# insurance card.

 

[59 Dano]

Granted, you did have to get in better physical shape before you could go crawling back to Fat Freddy. And I'm sure that sitting in an chair staring into that little box on your desk does wonders to keep you in shape.

You guys can whine all you want but one fact remains. Only strictly privately owned hospitals can refuse care because they are not network providers and do not accept public funding support and how many of those are currently in operation nationwide?

So as long as you continue to go to nonprofit publicly supported healthcare facilities for care that facility will not deny care on the basis of the patients ability to pay. If you don't like that fact then you are completely free to go to a privately owned facility.....and don't forget to bring your checkbook with you because they ain't going to accept your cheap as# insurance card.

Non-sequitur of the month, and it's only October 6.

 

[bacha29]

Non-sequitur of the month, and it's only October 6.

Call me whatever degrading comment you want but the fact still remains. You DO NOT HAVE to go to a public hospital if you don't want to. If you don't think that you would be justly served by a public hospital then go to a privately owned and operated healthcare facility.

 

[59 Dano]

Call me whatever degrading comment you want but the fact still remains. You DO NOT HAVE to go to a public hospital if you don't want to. If you don't think that you would be justly served by a public hospital then go to a privately owned and operated healthcare facility.

Non-sequitur is not a comment about a PERSON, ROTFLMAO!!!!!

 

[bacha29]

Non-sequitur is not a comment about a PERSON, ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Yes I know that. At the same time however you haven't offered one single rational idea as to what to do to help control the rising cost of healthcare outside of limiting access to only those with significant personal wealth and that ain't going to happen when it comes to America's PUBLIC healthcare system

And keep something else in mind. Given the way that Fat Freddy is dismantling his retiree healthcare plan one piece at a time by the time you reach retirement age it probably will no longer be there period. If I were you I would start preparing for that increasingly likely outcome as in right now.

 

[59 Dano]

Yes I know that. At the same time however you haven't offered one single rational idea as to what to do to help control the rising cost of healthcare outside of limiting access to only those with significant personal wealth and that ain't going to happen when it comes to America's PUBLIC healthcare system

There is no way to control costs without limiting access. It's not possible. ACA and other various subsidized plans drive up demand without a corresponding increase in supply, making it more expensive in general for everyone. Further, ACA and subsidized plans drive up costs for those of us who are subsidizing them.

And you clowns want more of what makes it more expensive.

And keep something else in mind. Given the way that Fat Freddy is dismantling his retiree healthcare plan one piece at a time by the time you reach retirement age it probably will no longer be there period. If I were you I would start preparing for that increasingly likely outcome as in right now.

I don't know how I'll make it if you ever quit giving me this kind of advice.

 

[bacha29]

There is no way to control costs without limiting access. It's not possible. ACA and other various subsidized plans drive up demand without a corresponding increase in supply, making it more expensive in general for everyone. Further, ACA and subsidized plans drive up costs for those of us who are subsidizing them.

And you clowns want more of what makes it more expensive.



I don't know how I'll make it if you ever quit giving me this kind of advice.

Ok, so you're calling for limiting access. So show us the formula you propose be used to determine who gets care and who doesn't

 

[59 Dano]

Ok, so you're calling for limiting access. So show us the formula you propose be used to determine who gets care and who doesn't

So far throughout all recorded history, prices work better than any other method in determining how limited quantities of a good/service should be allocated among the people who want it. There has never been an alternative that has been proven to be more effective.

 

[bacha29]

So far throughout all recorded history, prices work better than any other method in determining how limited quantities of a good/service should be allocated among the people who want it. There has never been an alternative that has been proven to be more effective.

Thanks for finally admitting that in your mind's eye medical care should only be available to those you have the money to meet the price.

Here's something to consider. Overturning the ACA would mean that insurers could once again refuse to provide coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions.... ALL 100 MILLION AMERICANS who have preexisting conditions whether they're are getting insurance through the ACA or not.....In addition COVID due to the devastating damage it does to vital organs is now considered to be a preexisting conditions. At the same time however your Dear Leader has issued and executive order that according to the administration will so called "protect" people with preexisting conditions. Only problem is it doesn't say HOW they will be protected so it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Therefore with 100 million Americans who could be kicked off access to health insurance and in all likelihood access to healthcare you certainly won't need nearly as many hospitals and supporting healthcare facilities. Which in turn means that the neighborhood community hospital that many including you take for granted probably won't be there.

So what other simplistic solution do you have to offer ?

 

[59 Dano]

Thanks for finally admitting that in your mind's eye medical care should only be available to those you have the money to meet the price.

The most efficient and effective way to provide care to the greatest number of people is via pricing. Why do you oppose it and prefer something that's even worse?

Here's something to consider. Overturning the ACA would mean that insurers could once again refuse to provide coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions.... ALL 100 MILLION AMERICANS who have preexisting conditions whether they're are getting insurance through the ACA or not.....In addition COVID due to the devastating damage it does to vital organs is now considered to be a preexisting conditions. At the same time however your Dear Leader has issued and executive order that according to the administration will so called "protect" people with preexisting conditions. Only problem is it doesn't say HOW they will be protected so it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Therefore with 100 million Americans who could be kicked off access to health insurance and in all likelihood access to healthcare you certainly won't need nearly as many hospitals and supporting healthcare facilities. Which in turn means that the neighborhood community hospital that many including you take for granted probably won't be there.

So what other simplistic solution do you have to offer ?

What do you mean, what other solution? I offered the optimum solution. Why would I offer another one that's not as good?

 

[bacha29]

The most efficient and effective way to provide care to the greatest number of people is via pricing. Why do you oppose it and prefer something that's even worse?



What do you mean, what other solution? I offered the optimum solution. Why would I offer another one that's not as good?

Another poorly disguised attempt to hide the fact that in your mind's eye pricing means that you all you need to do to improve service is to limit the number of people who have access to care with the dividing point being personal income.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Another poorly disguised attempt to hide the fact that in your mind's eye pricing means that you all you need to do to improve service is to limit the number of people who have access to care with the dividing point being personal income.

Apply what you’re demanding of the medical community to YOUR business model and see how fair you think it is.

As the old saying goes, it’s easier when you’re spending someone else’s money.