Politics Thread

[Masterofreality]

What about for Doctor visits, labs, tests and other non hospitalization stuff? That is what F (soon to be called G) is supposed to be involved with but you've got a 20% co-pay and a deductible amount that could be high? Is

There are some pre-existing conditions that my wife has that we know we'll have extra costs to cover for, that is why we're locking it in.

[Masterofreality]

There exists the fundamental problem that universal/socialized healthcare is not sustainable. Regardless of how much people or a country may want to provide healthcare for all its citizens, the resources do not exist to do so. The ACA/Obamacare has shown this when it attempted to remove risk stratification of premiums. All that has done is dramatically increase the premiums and deductibles for all parties. The result has been access to insurance, but not access to care.

The bottom line is that the government sector will never be able to provide healthcare to all the citizens of this country. As we continue to navigate down this road the end result will emulate other countries such as Canada and the UK where there is even a more distinct two-tiered system between the private sector for the extremely wealthy and the socialized sector for everyone else. The socialized sector is great as long as you aren't really sick or need a non-urgent treatment (hip replacement, non-urgent CABG, etc).

The problem is that since the ACA was passed it appears the dynamic of this country has changed and that the public somehow perceives healthcare as a right, so I don't know that we will ever truly be rid of it and the implications that resulted of the legislation. It would likely be political suicide for politicians to suggest otherwise, and for the most part those in power are very motivated by maintaining their elected positions.

We can probably slow down the destruction of our healthcare system, but I don't ever see us going back to what was better for 90% of Americans prior to the ACA being passed.

This man is a real Medical Doctor. Please believe what he says.

[bobbiemcgee]

"........ but I don't ever see us going back to what was better for 90% of Americans prior to the ACA being passed."

I would only dispute the "90%". I was paying 1200-1450 a month for a crappy self-employed policy before medicare with a pre-existing rider that not everything was covered, i.e., if I got pneumonia again, tough shit, no coverage. I had to agree to the non-coverage or get flat-out cancelled. Don't like our "coverage" decision? Sue us. We got plenty of Attys on staff. Nope, don't want to go back to that. Tried to switch to an HSA (republicans love this), nope "you have a pre-existing" need new underwriting and a fat increase. No wonder everybody hates insurance cos. BTW, their profits have skyrocketed and nobody doing anything about it. They just want to eliminate all risk and reap huge profits. There's plenty of blame to go around, folks.

[bobbiemcgee]

What about for Doctor visits, labs, tests and other non hospitalization stuff? That is what F (soon to be called G) is supposed to be involved with but you've got a 20% co-pay and a deductible amount that could be high? Is

There are some pre-existing conditions that my wife has that we know we'll have extra costs to cover for, that is why we're locking it in.

Absolutely makes sense if you have health problems. Most states have a 6 month "guaranteed issue" for supplements when you turn 65. After that, if you change companies (better premium is the ONLY reason to switch as all supplements are the same by law), they can underwrite.

[SemajParlor]

I found a PBS article from April that says he's 3-2 to be impeached. But I'd have to dig into that a bit more. I mean, is that like Bill Clinton impeached, or is it impeached and removed (or resigned)?

3-2 !? That's crazy high.

Was it Jimmy the Greek who said "the spread is not what the outcome should be, it's what the fans think the outcome should be" ?

[X-man]

And there we have it...Strange is against all government safety net programs. It should all be "voluntary". Never mind the public goods issue that makes a voluntary system inoperative because of free ridership problems. And can we also assume that all contributions to pay for national defense should also be voluntary?

Too bad XU87 can't respond to the question I specifically asked of him, the one which Brew answered. We now know that Brew is against all welfare programs covering food and shelter, tax subsidies for education (including all publicly supported college and universities), and any healthcare programs funded by taxes such as Medicaid and Medicare. XU87's comments suggest that he is in the same camp but unlike Brew, he doesn't appear to have the balls to admit it on this board.

[Strange Brew]

Too bad XU87 can't respond to the question I specifically asked of him, the one which Brew answered. We now know that Brew is against all welfare programs covering food and shelter, tax subsidies for education (including all publicly supported college and universities), and any healthcare programs funded by taxes such as Medicaid and Medicare. XU87's comments suggest that he is in the same camp but unlike Brew, he doesn't appear to have the balls to admit it on this board.

Nope, reading comprehension appears to be hard for you. In fact, I've stated multiple times in this thread I don't mind if states run these programs. I hope CA gives 1 govt payer a shot. It has a population similar to Canada so maybe we can learn things before we subject ~300 million people to a govt run system. Consider it a pilot program. Again, thanks for playing.

[OH.X.MI]

Too bad XU87 can't respond to the question I specifically asked of him, the one which Brew answered. We now know that Brew is against all welfare programs covering food and shelter, tax subsidies for education (including all publicly supported college and universities), and any healthcare programs funded by taxes such as Medicaid and Medicare. XU87's comments suggest that he is in the same camp but unlike Brew, he doesn't appear to have the balls to admit it on this board.

If you don't support a bureaucratic welfare state then what do you want? Dead poor people. Am I right, X-Man?

I have the "balls" to say that I am against the programs you reference.

The nuance that you are apparently incapable of comprehending is that I, and perhaps others, am against our society betterment programs in their current state. I cant speak for 87 or Brew, but I believe there needs to be a massive reform of entitlements in this country. But I wouldn't dare try to discuss those reforms. I've read enough of your posts to know that anyone who differs with you on this subject is just some capitalist villain who wants to see poor kids freeze to death in the street.

[Caf]

Nope, reading comprehension appears to be hard for you. In fact, I've stated multiple times in this thread I don't mind if states run these programs. I hope CA gives 1 govt payer a shot. It has a population similar to Canada so maybe we can learn things before we subject ~300 million people to a govt run system. Consider it a pilot program. Again, thanks for playing.

ytmb

[Caf]

What Democrats Won't Admit About Voters and Health Care - Bloomberg

This is a pretty good breakdown of the healthcare debate. The author makes a lot of the points being made here and it's not just anti-Dem like the title might suggest.