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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

the post you are replying to really wasn't about maternity coverage...
it was in response to the idea that since the er can't turn you away, all if fine in the world...
it's not!!! shouldn't those who make just enough to pay the taxes that are used chip in for medicaid expect to be able to obtain healthcare that is at least equivalent to those on medicaid??

as I stated in a previous post, I have no idea how many women would lose maternity coverage under trumpcare...
I can only tell you what it was like in the 80's when I had my kids... all it took was getting laid off and losing the healthcare under your employer, and well, it didn't matter, it was considered a pre-existing condition... so no coverage.




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Grambler
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?



THIS LEGISLATION is an arguement that my son's life is not valuable enough to receive care, without which he will eventually die at a very young age.

Your hypothetical is completely unrealistic. The absolute maximum of care anyone needs is ONE patient who is on a million dollar a day regimen. No one will ever need a billion dollars a day. It is the most expensive care I've ever heard of and I'm not sure what this patient's illness is or his life expectancy.

IF the LAW of the land says that a government VALUES THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING of it's citizens and will AID them in providing healthcare, which is extraordinarily burdensome, then it will follow its values. It would find a reasonable way to accommodate this member of it's citizenry.

You are damn right I'm emotional about this. I'm seeing my son's entire future as a freaking nightmare right now, when if they'd simply fixed the bloody ACA to where it was more fair, I would not be losing sleep and praying and having to sharpen my damn peasant pitch fork to go "storm the castle" (i.e. protest legally) to save my son's life and future.

Just stop for a second and feel what you would do if legislation like this was an existential threat to someone you love more than your own heartbeat. Can you picture that? When he was born I saw the universe in his eyes staring back at me - what is the price of that?

How can you not allow emotions to be part of the discussion, Grambler. Life and death ARE emotional - one of the most emotional things we humans deal with.


So you acknowledged that at some point, it becomes necessary to say we can't spend infinite dollars on a life.

Then you are no longer arguing the principle that we can put no value on life, you are just arguing what price is reasonable.

I wonder how you are so certain your child would have died had the ACA not been there. My own sister rteciecved free care at a shriners hospital for 12 years. All of this was based on charity.

Of course you are emotional. And yet you can not see the other side of the argument.

I know lives that were destroyed because of Obamacare. I know people that lost jobs, I know people who had to close businesses.

The problem is you setup a situation where you say "This program saved my sons life, therefore it is immoral to end this program!" while ignoring lives that this program may have destroyed.

Do you feel that it is the governments role to ensure every single life be saved from any illness, no matter what the cost?


NO - I did not acknowledge that - I simply said you were being completely unreasonable in your hypothetical.

Don't put words in my mouth and build an argument around what I didn't say, please.

I DO acknowledge that the ACA had major problems. These problems were fixable, and if we'd had people in government who were not hell bent on seeing the law destroyed, they could have been fixed with amendments. Instead, the law was sabotaged and made more expensive and worse. The GOP did that. Yay them.


You are avoiding the issue then.

Why so reticent to answer?

But I know, you wont answer, because you are afraid to be honest.

So I will answer both possible positions.

If you feel that all lives must be saved by the government, no matter the costs, then the country will go totally bankrupt in a manner of years.

Money is symbolic of labor and services. So we would have to put endless labor in saving every possible life, no matter age or illness, or how hopeless our efforts would be. No pulling the plug for anyone, conatsnt vigilance of the highest possible order.

The country wouldn't last a year.

If you say there does need to be some limit on the cost of saving a life, then you are not arguing a prinicple, only the price.

In which case, you conveniently set the bar at what is best for you. In other words, other people should pay your health bills, but we shouldn't take like 90% of your wealth to pay for a comatose person that may need constant care.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Someone of child bearing age should be responsible and have an insurance plan that covers childbirth. I don't see anything in the AHCA that says that childbirth would not be covered under Medicaid. So... I don't really see the problem or support for the complaint in the OP.

If the correct changes are made in the near future then costs should decrease. Increased competition by allowing insurance purchases across state lines would help. If government stops being a bottomless purse for medical providers, then they will be forced to drop prices to remain competitive with each other.

There are things that can be done to improve the system that do not involve some people paying for other people who do not have insurance.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



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


That's a very specific question. You would have to define massive.

Also, I've already shown a way to cut a substantial percentage off of the costs of healthcare that you seem to be avoiding.



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


I did not say anything about total government control. A UHC system would include private entities being involved.



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


Fraud is a problem within any system, whether it's government or private.



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.


In regards to healthcare, that is incorrect. Private insurance is competitive, but they work together to drive prices up to maximize profits.

It's that sort of thinking that gave us Obamacare.
edit on 26-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

even the colonies "did that"!!!



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



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


That's a very specific question. You would have to define massive.

Also, I've already shown a way to cut a substantial percentage off of the costs of healthcare that you see to be avoiding.



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


I did not say anything about total government control. A UHC system would include private entities being involved.



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


Fraud is a problem within any system, whether it's government or private.



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.


In regards to healthcare, that is incorrect. Private insurance is competitive, but they work together to drive prices up to maximize profits.

It's that sort of thinking that gave us Obamacare.


If private companies are still involved, what is to stop the exact same problems we see with Obamacare?

The middle man would still be there, they will still be making a profit.

Every time that a government program guarantees money to a private enitiy, that system is abused and ends up wasting loads of money.

Universal health care would be no different.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



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


That's a very specific question. You would have to define massive.

Also, I've already shown a way to cut a substantial percentage off of the costs of healthcare that you see to be avoiding.



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


I did not say anything about total government control. A UHC system would include private entities being involved.



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


Fraud is a problem within any system, whether it's government or private.



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.


In regards to healthcare, that is incorrect. Private insurance is competitive, but they work together to drive prices up to maximize profits.

It's that sort of thinking that gave us Obamacare.


If private companies are still involved, what is to stop the exact same problems we see with Obamacare?

The middle man would still be there, they will still be making a profit.

.


Important distinction for clarification:

The only ones making a profit are the companies that administer the government's ObamaCare Medicaid program. The health insurers who sell policies to individuals are taking a financial beating. 90% of them have left, or will soon be leaving, that ObamaCare sector.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



If private companies are still involved, what is to stop the exact same problems we see with Obamacare?


There would not be an extra element involved, or middle man, namely the insurance companies.



The middle man would still be there, they will still be making a profit.


What middle man? You need care, you go see a doctor. The UHC system pays them. The doctors and staff make a little money, the government makes none, as that is not their purpose, as the insurance companies are gone.

The middle men are gone.



Every time that a government program guarantees money to a private enitiy, that system is abused and ends up wasting loads of money.


That is why we have strict regulations and controls. You limit waste and abuse. Still, you fail to address the issue of the middle men, which is the insurance companies which a UHC would eliminate . In a country in where a large section of society is already on government subsidized healthcare, you pay for two entities to administer the programs.

Bring it down to one. Eliminate one and toss-out the profit motive.

Money saved.
edit on 26-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



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


That's a very specific question. You would have to define massive.

Also, I've already shown a way to cut a substantial percentage off of the costs of healthcare that you see to be avoiding.



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


I did not say anything about total government control. A UHC system would include private entities being involved.



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


Fraud is a problem within any system, whether it's government or private.



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.


In regards to healthcare, that is incorrect. Private insurance is competitive, but they work together to drive prices up to maximize profits.

It's that sort of thinking that gave us Obamacare.


If private companies are still involved, what is to stop the exact same problems we see with Obamacare?

The middle man would still be there, they will still be making a profit.

.


Important distinction for clarification:

The only ones making a profit are the companies that administer the government's ObamaCare Medicaid program. The health insurers who sell policies to individuals are taking a financial beating. 90% of them have left, or will soon be leaving, that ObamaCare sector.


Incorrect. They are making a killing.

www.axios.com...


The largest health insurance companies in the United States reaped historically large profits in the first quarter of this year, despite all the noise surrounding the Affordable Care Act's individual marketplaces.

Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth Group — the big five for-profit insurers — cumulatively collected $4.5 billion in net earnings in the first three months of 2017. That was by far the biggest first-quarter haul for the group since the ACA exchanges went live in 2014. Other major insurers, such as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield company Health Care Service Corp., also are improving their ACA operations.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Worse yet, they were attempting to merge. It failed.

Imagine two corporations controlling 80% of the market. Sound familiar...like the media, oil, banks. You know...the corrupt things.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




What middle man? You need care, you go see a doctor. The UHC system pays them. The doctors and staff make a little money, the government makes none, as that is not their purpose, as the insurance companies are gone.


have you considered the effect this would have on things like IRAs and such though?? I mean the insurance companies would end up taking a massive hit, and everything from IRAs to retirement funds, to I believe even local gov'ts might have investments in these companies.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: AboveBoard


Ok Bro but were the problems is and where it started is when the Government acts like it their money.



I'ts "Ma'm," and the government is supposed to belong to the people for the betterment of the people. We are a collective whether people like it that way or not - and if WE don't look out for each other, and for the most vulnerable among us, then we are a crappy, immature and spoiled collective. Individual responsibility is necessary to a functioning system too, not doubting that for a minute, but without banding together, America as a nation would not exist.


I follow the flow that we should be a nation that looks out. Certainly for our progeny.

But remember and I do maybe because I was closer to it. But poor families used to have large amounts of children.....seeing progeny as something greater than all else. The generations got weaker, families got smaller and not that it wasn't harder......maybe.

Anyway now we have a generation and have had wanting the "collective" to pay for progeny. What a bunch of sniveling people.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: introvert




What middle man? You need care, you go see a doctor. The UHC system pays them. The doctors and staff make a little money, the government makes none, as that is not their purpose, as the insurance companies are gone.


have you considered the effect this would have on things like IRAs and such though?? I mean the insurance companies would end up taking a massive hit, and everything from IRAs to retirement funds, to I believe even local gov'ts might have investments in these companies.



I do not care one bit about fake money market speculations in relation to the healthcare of the people in this country.

We've already witnessed the fleecing the average American takes when the markets take a dive.

They get the shaft and the big dogs keep doing what they do.

Healthcare is a much bigger priority. Honestly, I do not understand why someone would put their money in to such things. I got out just before the 2008 disaster and found better, more reliable instruments to make money on.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: dawnstar

Once again... who said that you can't get insurance that covers childbirth?



IF you have an "accidental" pregnancy, despite being careful (like my husband and I did with hour child who needs all the surgeries, etc.), then you are NOT covered for ANY part of the pregnancy. You are NOT covered for the child's prenatal care. IF you have regular insurance, you usually have a time period where you can get the child onto your plan after they are born.

I gave birth in an operating theatre with about sixteen people present in case emergency surgery was needed on the baby post-birth, or they needed to do an emergency c-section. None of that was covered. It was recommended that I stay a second night in the hospital after I gave birth but I told them I couldn't because it was all out of pocket.

It was expensive...


And yet your life went on.

This is my point.

You are really just making a financial argument that comes down to.

"I shouldn't have to pay these bills! Others should!"



No. Not at all. I simply stated what happened. We paid the bills. We had financial misfortune. It sucked.

Here's what you are not seeing...

ANY human could, at the very next moment, find themselves with an illness they are unable to pay for without losing everything they ever had - their home, their car, etc. That is what insurance was originally designed to protect against.

EVERY person will, most likely, have serious illness touch them at some point, or if they are magically healthy their whole lives, then it will touch someone they love more than their own lives...

What happens when millions and millions of people can't get healthcare or go bankrupt trying? What happens to our economy, to our "big picture" of how the nation functions. Can people afford to live after they manage to recover from an illness, or after the death of a loved one?

This IS NOT just about "individuals" and "individual responsibility," whether people can see it that way or not. We are interconnected.

Legislation like the GOP wants to push through is going to actively harm the financial well=being of MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people, maybe even YOU. And when millions and millions of people are thrown into poverty, or are so "healthcare poor" paying off medical bills that they cannot do anything other than barely exist - not consuming like our economy needs them to, what happens then?

American goes into the crapper further and further.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Ideally, a government would just be an agent of optimization for the collective, universal needs of a people. In that respect, size would be irrelevant, but we are both probably well aware of the reality of the relationship between a government and its people.

I'm actually an advocate for removing the middleman representatives in government with direct representation through technology. Eventually leading to the complete elimination of what we currently know as a governing body. The full implementation of such a system may not currently be feasible, but I do think the steps we could take now might be beneficial.

Even so, I think many of the same discussions have merit even if we are talking about an idealized, perfect government. In that respect, I think framing the conversation entirely on historical, or even modern contexts, may be a mistake if used as a conceptual foundation rather than simply a consideration. A consideration which may change very, very drastically over time.

Even in a completely decentralized system with little to no government as we know it (my own ideal) will still have commonalities. Many of those will benefit greatly through universal distribution of responsibility, like roads and, in my opinion, healthcare.

Honestly, I don't feel we have moved beyond the feudal system.. But, I'm not sure I'm prepared to base all of my decisions on that notion. Meaning, I'm not convinced its a good idea to limit what we should or shouldn't do solely according to how it affects the size or involvement of government.

That also introduces the aspect that meeting these universal needs is solely in the wheelhouses of the governing body, or perhaps corporations. Of course, that is simply how its been handled at least as long as any of us have been alive, and that goes back into that larger conversation. I feel that technology enables us to explore other options and limiting those options because of "what has been" may be shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to "what may be."

At the very least, it might be prudent to explore how we could fix those issues with a governing body rather than limit our potential in order to keep it at bay. In the end, doing the latter may be just as detrimental as vast, extensive involvement of an inept government.

Frankly, I think we have a lot of work to do to put us in a position to take advantage of advancing technology instead of being trampled by it. To me, that's the central hub in many of these conversations. In looking towards the future, instead of the past, I think it will give us a clearer picture of what kind of foundation we should be building right now, in the present.

I think we should be preparing for a situation where, say, the vast majority of (if not all) medical care is completely automated. Because it may not be that far off. I believe it takes several generations to truly make a cultural shift and it may be a good idea to start that now, seeing as how many of the discussed facets may be rendered entirely moot in the not-so-distant future.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



If private companies are still involved, what is to stop the exact same problems we see with Obamacare?


There would not be an extra element involved, or middle man, namely the insurance companies.



The middle man would still be there, they will still be making a profit.


What middle man? You need care, you go see a doctor. The UHC system pays them. The doctors and staff make a little money, the government makes none, as that is not their purpose, as the insurance companies are gone.

The middle men are gone.



Every time that a government program guarantees money to a private enitiy, that system is abused and ends up wasting loads of money.


That is why we have strict regulations and controls. You limit waste and abuse. Still, you fail to address the issue of the middle men, which is the insurance companies which a UHC would eliminate . In a country in where a large section of society is already on government subsidized healthcare, you pay for two entities to administer the programs.

Bring it down to one. Eliminate one and toss-out the profit motive.

Money saved.


Then why is the veterans health care so poorly run. Even after the corruption has been pointed out publicly for years, it is STILL a disaster.

And here is just a snippet of how Bernies universal health plan would have costs us.


Given that Medicare is running some $40 trillion in the red, that might not be the best model, but Bernie’s undeterred. In fact, Sanders’ plan would actually cover more services than Medicare.

And, it would do away with all of Medicare’s modest cost-sharing components like co-payments, deductibles and premiums. When Sanders promises free health care, he means it.

But, as O’Rourke warned us, BernieCare will really cost us a whole lot more. Sanders’ own estimates suggest that BernieCare would cost roughly $13.8 trillion over its first decade of operation, roughly a 30 percent increase in federal spending.


...


And this doesn’t count the likely impact of all this taxing and spending on the economy. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation, for instance, estimates that Bernie’s plan would reduce GDP by 9.5 percent over the long term, and reduce after-tax income for all Americans by an average of 12.8 percent.


nypost.com...

Notice how it says medicare is 4o TRILLION in debt.

But you are right, Americans would be ecstatic with a 12.8 percent reduction in their wealth for starters.

And screw it, let the kids in the future pay for it, right?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock




What a bunch of sniveling people.


hey, I wasn't complaining till I found myself having to quit jobs, breaking bones, and ending up laying around with a splint on my leg with surgeons refusing to fix those broken bones without a massive down payment, and at the same time, hearing on the tv and reading in the newspapers how everything from the sales tax I was paying, to the state income tax, to the fees we paid for car registrations ect had to go up to help the neighbor who lived across the street pay for the doctor when she ran her child to the doctor every time she had a runny nose to alleviate her concern!!
during this time I had one neighbor living next door to me who had baby who was born premature, who's lungs were developed correctly splitting up with her husband.... just so the gov't could help her keep her child alive... and on the other side, I was watching the two arguing in their yard as to just who was less able to work, dad who was going to college, or mom who had to run her kid to his baseball games and on and on....

I had a friend up there that worked for social services.... they were actually giving parents a choice when they had sick kids who needed unaffordable care... either have the children placed in childcare, or send dad away and go on welfare....
guess what, it would be much cheaper to provide the little help that some people need that provide for all their danged needs!!!

I'd rather be a " sniveling" person trying to point out a big mistake that we seem to be making than a stupid person ignoring that mistake!



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Then why is the veterans health care so poorly run. Even after the corruption has been pointed out publicly for years, it is STILL a disaster.


Because even with VA healthcare we are unwilling to fully commit to their care. We do not allow them to go anywhere they want to get care and cover the expenses.

A UHC system would allow them to get care anywhere they wish. We do not allow the private caregivers the chance to compete for that money.



Notice how it says medicare is 4o TRILLION in debt.


I can agree. We are spending our money in the wrong places.

Why are we spending our money on war/defense is such astronomical amounts to create vets/medical issues instead of spending what we already pay to make our nation healthier?

We need to re-evaluate our priorities.



And screw it, let the kids in the future pay for it, right?


We could easily pay for it without passing the debt to our kids if we had our # together.

Problem is, we don't have our # together.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I do not like the Republican bill. The plan should be getting government out of health care.

Obamacare was a failure. Universal health care would be a failure (look at how much Bernies plan would cost).

Just because people prefer a more free market solution doesn't mean they are not concerned with lives.

Yes you are right that all (or almost all) will face unexpected hardships.

But you use that to jump to the conclusion that the government must save everyone from those hardships. Not only will this lead to unethical taking of other peoples wealth to pay for these hardships, but like Obama crae has shown, it makes the situation worse in many cases.

Lets take your situation. I bet when you incurred all of those debts, you thought you would have never been aable to pay them, and the government (aka other people) should help you pay those bills.

Yet you paid them, and you are going strong.

Would it have been ethical to force other people to pay a debt that you yourself were capable of paying?

I don't think so.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert
I feel the same way as you about the markets, but it seems that when they take a major jolt, it doesn't matter if you are invested or not... you end up being negatively effected in one way or another.




top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join