It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP can go to hell.

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




If the government is to be involved it should be providing things such as HSA's and guaranteed care to extreme cases to very low income people.


so, why should the not so very low income taxpayer who can't afford their own healthcare have to pitch in so that those with lower incomes and enjoy what he cannot???




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Your contention that other government entitlements like guaranteed student loans and social security aren't applicable is a poor argument.


They are not applicable because the way those systems are designed, and their purpose, is not comparable to how a UHC system would be implemented.



We already see health care facilities abusing medicare and medicaid, boosting up the price of their services to insane amounts knowing the money is guaranteed and the bureaucracy has a small chance of catching them.


Actually, facilities inflate their prices because they know they will only be paid a percentage of that bill.



The best chance we have of affordable, effective health care is to get both the government and insurance companies out of it as much as possible, and allow competition to drive costs.


The best chance we have for affordable healthcare is to create a system in which the us populace becomes the biggest healthcare purchasing power in the US, dropping insurance altogether and allowing that purchasing power to negotiate the costs of services and meds in one fell swoop.



If the government is to be involved it should be providing things such as HSA's and guaranteed care to extreme cases to very low income people.


Low income is a large section of our country. We would still be where we are at today.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Grambler




If the government is to be involved it should be providing things such as HSA's and guaranteed care to extreme cases to very low income people.


so, why should the not so very low income taxpayer who can't afford their own healthcare have to pitch in so that those with lower incomes and enjoy what he cannot???



They shouldnt. My suggestion is that this would be where the debate should begin. But yes, the taking of money by force by the government should almost never be done.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


If you can't afford kids don't have them.


You missed the point. As usual. They can afford them, they can't afford the costs associated with having them in a hospital.


The focus should be in bringing costs down,


That's the point.


not forcing other people to pay for your kids. Take some personal responsibility and stop assuming others will pay for you.


That's your false equivalency and hypocrisy.

You're implying that if costs are too high those who can't afford the extreme costs (associated with hospital care) should not have kids (with which I disagree) even though you agree that cost is the problem.

Figures.

To hell with those who can't afford for-profit healthcare. Got it.

edit on 26-6-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Grambler

Close to 50% of births are covered by medicaid.

But, this is the same party that would outlaw abortions if they could.

GOP is inconsistent and inconsiderate all at once.


Don't forget that this "anti-healthcare plan" is going to GUT Medicaid...

*sigh*



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Before I even BEGIN to read this..

I predict...

This thread WON'T go/end well...



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Your contention that other government entitlements like guaranteed student loans and social security aren't applicable is a poor argument.


They are not applicable because the way those systems are designed, and their purpose, is not comparable to how a UHC system would be implemented.



We already see health care facilities abusing medicare and medicaid, boosting up the price of their services to insane amounts knowing the money is guaranteed and the bureaucracy has a small chance of catching them.


Actually, facilities inflate their prices because they know they will only be paid a percentage of that bill.



The best chance we have of affordable, effective health care is to get both the government and insurance companies out of it as much as possible, and allow competition to drive costs.


The best chance we have for affordable healthcare is to create a system in which the us populace becomes the biggest healthcare purchasing power in the US, dropping insurance altogether and allowing that purchasing power to negotiate the costs of services and meds in one fell swoop.



If the government is to be involved it should be providing things such as HSA's and guaranteed care to extreme cases to very low income people.


Low income is a large section of our country. We would still be where we are at today.


Name me one massive program by the government that has resulted in lower costs for the general public.

If total government control of health care would be such a success, why is government run veterans health care so appallingly bad and corrupt?

And I note that you ignored the problem of medicare fraud that we already see.

Only competition will provide an incentive to lower costs and increase the quality of care. Just like every government ran program, quality will go down and cost will go up.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Seriously. Birth costs A LOT of money. The average household can hardly afford the crazy prices we have in America, and the gop wants to change medicaid coverage for births.. Why?

Seriously. Looking for some consistency - do you want people to be able to have kids, or do you want more abortions sought out because a birth can literally bankrupt someone if no aid is given?

Here's a novel idea...
Don't have kids unless you can afford it.


The gop seriously makes me frustrated sometimes.

Likewise people frustrate me who expect hand outs and congratulations for getting screwed...



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
So glad my union fought and negotiated for my health care which costs me nothing.

Both kids being born through a c-section maybe cost $50 after a $600 deductible.

If I wanted an ice cream sandwich, but didn't have the money for it, should my neighbor buy it for me?

I work for my benefits, I don't expect government handouts.

Guess I am one of the lucky ones who worked hard. Eh?




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

I wish we didn't have to rely on government at all to tend to ourselves.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Personally, I find this to be a really interesting discussion and one I lump into the overall context of "The Society of the Future." I wont go into that term much, but its basically the necessity of fundamental societal change in the face of advancing tools (technology).

I am of the mind that a healthy society or nation is a critical factor to continued strength and success. There is a helluva lot more to that than simply which healthcare system we employ, but its definitely a part of it in my opinion.

For me, the issue comes in when the conversation revolves around either "screw everyone but me and mine" or thinking that simply "covering" everyone under the current paradigm being paths to success. I hold the same opinion about pretty much every social net. Basically, I think that focusing on either funneling more money or cutting budgets is entirely the wrong paradigm.

At its core, our current system benefits more from keeping people in a perpetual state of illness. I don't think this is exclusive to a for-profit system either. At least not when there is the pseudo-penalty of permanent budget cuts that inevitably follow doing a better job than the year before.

Bit of a ramble, I guess, but I don't really see any of the options on the table leading to a better system/society/world/etc. and the healthcare debate isn't alone in that.

I find it frustrating. Especially when my own inventions don't have much of a place in modern paradigms, but could enable divergent systems to an extreme degree. I doubt I am alone in that either.. Automation being a very pertinent example.

Maybe its a mistake to envision systems that can grow with our inevitable tool advancement, rather than just whether to start or stop the flow of funds, but I think it will become imperative in time.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

To hell with those who can't afford for-profit healthcare. Got it.


I already asked this and didn't get an answer.

Are you implying that a woman in labor would be turned down at a hospital when in labor?

I don't believe that is the case (I could be wrong).

So then this merely becomes an economic argument.

So the person ccan have a child, and yes struggle to pay this debt. But there is no debtors prison. In fact, I know people who have paid like $5 a month for years and years on medical bills because of economic hardship, yet they have nice cars and phones, etc.

So I will turn your statement on you.

To hell with those that work hard and want to keep their own money. Got it.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
If you can't afford the birth, how are you going to afford to raise the child?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: deadlyhope

What are you talking about? Home birth is the trend these days.


I was going to a midwife with my second son. I'd paid for the entire birth already when the one ultrasound we agreed to showed us that the developing fetus had a massive heart problem, one of the pumping chambers had been damaged as was not functional. If the fetus made it to the point of being able to be born, he would need three open-heart surgeries just to survive.

Luckily we had insurance at the time and could switch over from at-home birthing to a hospital birth with a special pediatric cardiology unit. Oh - AND this boy was not planned for. It was a birth control failure. My husband and I were given the opportunity to abort this fetus but we "chose life" and NOW they are talking "life time caps." My son is going to need another massive surgery, and medication currently is keeping his heart functioning. (Now we have great ACA insurance - the best I've ever freaking had in my entire life.)

So by the "logic" of every right-winger, his life is worth nothing because we aren't super rich, yet you would have forced a family in our position to give birth, because "pro-life." Where is the "pro-life" part after he's freaking born??

He's just a kid now. You want to tell him he's not worth keeping alive by our government? You want to tell him they only way he can live is if we raise about a million dollars over time? That we go bankrupt and lose everything and then become a burden on society because his government neither values him nor our family enough to give a rats ass what happens to him, or us? That we are alone because "personal responsibility" is somehow relevant to dying children?

I AM pro-life in my own family, and we wouldn't make a different decision, but people are extremely naive if they think that what the GOP wants to do is in any way rational or remotely helpful for families with surprises like ours. Their bill is, in fact, deadly.

You simply can't have it both ways without being incredibly hypocritical. You can't be pro-life and then suddenly "anti-life" in your approach to health care.

My son will make his "lifetime max" with about $500,000 or so left to pay out on his next surgery, and then medications for the rest of his life that cost thousands of dollars per month. How many desperate people will tap out the go fund me campaigns after this legislation???

How the hell are we supposed to even do that??? Not to mention that EVERYONE HERE will see their premiums rise unless they get crapola insurance that does nothing for them when they need it.

edit on 26-6-2017 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: UKTruth


If you can't afford kids don't have them.


You missed the point. As usual. They can afford them, they can't afford the costs associated with having them in a hospital.


The focus should be in bringing costs down,


That's the point.


not forcing other people to pay for your kids. Take some personal responsibility and stop assuming others will pay for you.


That's your false equivalency and hypocrisy.

You're implying that if costs are too high those who can't afford the extreme costs (associated with hospital care) should not have kids (with which I disagree) even though you agree that cost is the problem.

Figures.

To hell with those who can't afford for-profit healthcare. Got it.


No the point is very much as I stated. Don't expect others to pay for your kids.

Bringing costs down does not mean others paying for you, it means bringing the cost down.. Exactly as stated.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Grambler

Personally, I find this to be a really interesting discussion and one I lump into the overall context of "The Society of the Future." I wont go into that term much, but its basically the necessity of fundamental societal change in the face of advancing tools (technology).

I am of the mind that a healthy society or nation is a critical factor to continued strength and success. There is a helluva lot more to that than simply which healthcare system we employ, but its definitely a part of it in my opinion.

For me, the issue comes in when the conversation revolves around either "screw everyone but me and mine" or thinking that simply "covering" everyone under the current paradigm being paths to success. I hold the same opinion about pretty much every social net. Basically, I think that focusing on either funneling more money or cutting budgets is entirely the wrong paradigm.

At its core, our current system benefits more from keeping people in a perpetual state of illness. I don't think this is exclusive to a for-profit system either. At least not when there is the pseudo-penalty of permanent budget cuts that inevitably follow doing a better job than the year before.

Bit of a ramble, I guess, but I don't really see any of the options on the table leading to a better system/society/world/etc. and the healthcare debate isn't alone in that.

I find it frustrating. Especially when my own inventions don't have much of a place in modern paradigms, but could enable divergent systems to an extreme degree. I doubt I am alone in that either.. Automation being a very pertinent example.

Maybe its a mistake to envision systems that can grow with our inevitable tool advancement, rather than just whether to start or stop the flow of funds, but I think it will become imperative in time.


Good post.

I would argue that history bares out that the best way to ensure a healthy society (in all sense of the word) is to have a limited government.

Yes the government has a role, but when we insert it into areas it shouldn't be (social security, education, etc.) it ends up making matters so much worse.

One of my favorite quotes from C. S. Lewis.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Don't worry they will



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Are you implying that a woman in labor would be turned down at a hospital when in labor?


I never implied that.


So the person ccan have a child, and yes struggle to pay this debt.


They can. And they do, because of the exorbitant costs.


I know people who have paid like $5 a month for years and years on medical bills because of economic hardship, yet they have nice cars and phones, etc.


Your point? Some people take advantage. Should others suffer?


So I will turn your statement on you.

To hell with those that work hard and want to keep their own money. Got it.


This is about people not being able to afford the exorbitant costs associated with childbirth in a for-profit hospital.

Stop moving the goalposts.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: deadlyhope

I wish we didn't have to rely on government at all to tend to ourselves.


our government was set up to protect America from the ravages of the royal, religious, and the wealthy of England



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Who is arguing that your son is not a worthwhile life?

Let me say, all of this debate aside, I am very happy for you and your son, and I hope that he thrives in life.

The problem is that you look at this in a purely emotional state and by making what you think our arguments based out of morality.

I would contend that your argument is not a moral one but a financial one.

Are you arguing that we can place no dollar value on any human life?

If thats the case, lets say we find out a person will need an entire environment and medicine regiment that will cost about 1 billion dollars a day.

Would you be the monster that said it can't be afforded? Or would you insist that the government spend this money?

And a follow up question; if the government controlled all healthcare, what choice do you think they would decide?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join