Trump: 'Time for Republicans & Democrats to Get Together' on Health Care Plan

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know this has no value today but Trump did go on record 30 or so years ago saying that he is a fan of universal healthcare.

Any Trump statement has a credibility shelf life of less than 24 hours...Trump supporters have repeatedly told me so and chided me for interpreting his words as normal people speak. He speaks in some form of tongues from the temple of BS that only his followers can understand.

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: NotToday
I don't understand what's wrong with the get a job and pay for your own healthcare plan? Unless someone's disabled or under 18 I don't see the benefit of providing them care if they can't afford it themselves? Hasn't society already made the decision their utility is not worthy of care?

For one, it's not affordable. 40% of the country makes under $10/hour, and a lot of them live in large cities where you have 3 people sharing a 1 bedroom apartment in order to cover rent. You should be able to cover insurance on 10% of your wages, but at $10/hour without taking taxes into account that would only give you a premium of $173/month. Insurance costs more than that.

If it was not affordable how was 85% the population insured the year before Obamacare? I don't think we should subsidize people's poor life decisions and lack of societial worth. There's a reason the US has the best healthcare in the world for those who can afford it and it's not because we limit profit and costs.

The US has the best Healthcare in the world?

Yes, for those who can afford it. The US has the worlds the best hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, and university research system.

Just bc its the best and most expensive healthcare does not mean its the best system. The best system would be for it to be affordable for everyone and free for the poor.

If we leave out the poor, we are leaving weakness in the system, room for disease to spread and possibly new diseases to brew that have no cure.

No, the best system would be more affordable to everyone and let nature take its course on the people WHO SOCIETY HAS ALREADY DEEMED WORTHLESS. If we care for people that provide little to no benefit to society we are perpetuating weakness.

a reply to: NotToday
There was a guy in the 30's who said a lot of stuff similar to this... Can't place his name though... Hmmm... Probably not important.

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: NotToday
I don't understand what's wrong with the get a job and pay for your own healthcare plan? Unless someone's disabled or under 18 I don't see the benefit of providing them care if they can't afford it themselves? Hasn't society already made the decision their utility is not worthy of care?

For one, it's not affordable. 40% of the country makes under $10/hour, and a lot of them live in large cities where you have 3 people sharing a 1 bedroom apartment in order to cover rent. You should be able to cover insurance on 10% of your wages, but at $10/hour without taking taxes into account that would only give you a premium of $173/month. Insurance costs more than that.

If it was not affordable how was 85% the population insured the year before Obamacare? I don't think we should subsidize people's poor life decisions and lack of societial worth. There's a reason the US has the best healthcare in the world for those who can afford it and it's not because we limit profit and costs.

The US has the best Healthcare in the world?

Yes, for those who can afford it. The US has the worlds the best hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, and university research system.

Just bc its the best and most expensive healthcare does not mean its the best system. The best system would be for it to be affordable for everyone and free for the poor.

If we leave out the poor, we are leaving weakness in the system, room for disease to spread and possibly new diseases to brew that have no cure.

No, the best system would be more affordable to everyone and let nature take its course on the people WHO SOCIETY HAS ALREADY DEEMED WORTHLESS. If we care for people that provide little to no benefit to society we are perpetuating weakness.

lol, when did society deem any group of people "worthless"?

I personally think people like you are worthless but I still want you to take care of yourself and have healthcare.

a reply to: NotToday

Those who can't afford it don't need it, as society has already determined their worth.

I work in an industry that many in society find to be essential. The fact that it's one of the oldest professions in the world supports this claim. It is also a notoriously low paying job, at least in the US, although I make just enough to cover a basic insurance plan. I'm a brewer.

I was also born with a heart defect that required surgery when I was one week old. I haven't had any complications from this condition since I had an angioplasty on my 22nd birthday *knock on wood.*

Now, for your average run of the mill illness I'll be fine with my current insurance. If my heart condition acts up there's no way I can pay for it. Do you believe that in that case I deserve to die?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NotToday

30 Most Technologically Advanced Hospitals in the World
In the top ten alone there are 6 hospitals in countries other than the States.

So we have 40% of the most technology advanced hostipals in the world? Does any other country come close to that? Would that mean the US has the most technologically adavaned hospitals in the world for those who can afford it?

The one city of Bangkok, Thailand is on that list 3 times. twice more than any other city on that list.

Did you say twice more than any city or country?

a reply to: NotToday

I said city because I'd trust a city with several clustered and highly rated hospitals over a country where there is GREAT tracks of land between each quality hospital. Plus Thailand only really has the one city.

a reply to: olaru12

First of all you have not clue what ACA or caca is do you, is still a run by insurance providers with now the benefit of having the population that were always under insurance by mandate, premiums are not affordable for the working class unless you fall under the extended Medicaid provisions of it.

Either way caca should never have been allowed to get the insurance mandate clause in it, because you remember right? it was insurance companies lawyers the ones that added that clause in it.

Later called a tax by the supreme court.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Edumakated
UK at 18... yet in spite of socialized medicine, they can't keep all their teeth.

Are you sure you want to use teeth stereotypes for your "example"? Because there are similar stereotypes about the entire Deep South of America...

My point went over your head apparently. What is the UK's excuse? I thought socialized medicine was supposed to fix the problem? Everyone in UK should have a mouth full of pearly whites, right?

Never said the US didn't have toothless folks. However, the US doesn't claim to have socialized medicine to pay for dental care either.

Yet in the UK...Bad Teeth - The New British Disease

I can get my teeth cleaned and examined here in the states for like $150 bucks with NO INSURANCE.

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: NotToday
I don't understand what's wrong with the get a job and pay for your own healthcare plan? Unless someone's disabled or under 18 I don't see the benefit of providing them care if they can't afford it themselves? Hasn't society already made the decision their utility is not worthy of care?

For one, it's not affordable. 40% of the country makes under $10/hour, and a lot of them live in large cities where you have 3 people sharing a 1 bedroom apartment in order to cover rent. You should be able to cover insurance on 10% of your wages, but at $10/hour without taking taxes into account that would only give you a premium of $173/month. Insurance costs more than that.

If it was not affordable how was 85% the population insured the year before Obamacare? I don't think we should subsidize people's poor life decisions and lack of societial worth. There's a reason the US has the best healthcare in the world for those who can afford it and it's not because we limit profit and costs.

The US has the best Healthcare in the world?

Yes, for those who can afford it. The US has the worlds the best hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, and university research system.

Just bc its the best and most expensive healthcare does not mean its the best system. The best system would be for it to be affordable for everyone and free for the poor.

If we leave out the poor, we are leaving weakness in the system, room for disease to spread and possibly new diseases to brew that have no cure.

No, the best system would be more affordable to everyone and let nature take its course on the people WHO SOCIETY HAS ALREADY DEEMED WORTHLESS. If we care for people that provide little to no benefit to society we are perpetuating weakness.

lol, when did society deem any group of people "worthless"?

I personally think people like you are worthless but I still want you to take care of yourself and have healthcare.

When society refused to pay them enough to afford their own healthcare. You can think of me what you like but society likes what I've got to offer to it and that's more important.

a reply to: Edumakated

Pointing out that things aren't perfect in a system you are opposed to is a cheap cop out. Everyone and their mother should know that nothing in life is perfect, nothing we create is perfect, and no system we implement is perfect. So pointing out that a system has a less than perfect track record is akin to being smug about telling someone that the sky is blue.

a reply to: Edumakated

Compared to the US' issue with obesity. Which then leads to high blood pressure. Which then leads to heart disease. Which then leads to being put on 20 different medications. Which then leads to lining Glaxo-Smith-Kline's CEO's pockets with fat ducats.

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: NotToday
I don't understand what's wrong with the get a job and pay for your own healthcare plan? Unless someone's disabled or under 18 I don't see the benefit of providing them care if they can't afford it themselves? Hasn't society already made the decision their utility is not worthy of care?

For one, it's not affordable. 40% of the country makes under $10/hour, and a lot of them live in large cities where you have 3 people sharing a 1 bedroom apartment in order to cover rent. You should be able to cover insurance on 10% of your wages, but at $10/hour without taking taxes into account that would only give you a premium of $173/month. Insurance costs more than that.

If it was not affordable how was 85% the population insured the year before Obamacare? I don't think we should subsidize people's poor life decisions and lack of societial worth. There's a reason the US has the best healthcare in the world for those who can afford it and it's not because we limit profit and costs.

The US has the best Healthcare in the world?

Yes, for those who can afford it. The US has the worlds the best hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, and university research system.

Just bc its the best and most expensive healthcare does not mean its the best system. The best system would be for it to be affordable for everyone and free for the poor.

If we leave out the poor, we are leaving weakness in the system, room for disease to spread and possibly new diseases to brew that have no cure.

No, the best system would be more affordable to everyone and let nature take its course on the people WHO SOCIETY HAS ALREADY DEEMED WORTHLESS.

You are confused on the definition of "SOCIETY"...

Capitalism deems anyone whose medical expenses exceeds their payments as unprofitable.

That goes for employed people as well. Let alone people that contract or are diagnosed with disease after being laid off.

Medical Bills were the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the USA for a decade running even during the housing crisis, near economic collapse...even during record breaking layoffs...Medical Bills still was the biggest cause of bankruptcy.

SOCIETY...Places great value on people being able to recover from illness and return to productivity.

Unfortunately Disease does not respond to Supply and Demand or capitalistic equations...

Cancer doesn't care how hard you work...it doesn't care about your investment in a PhD. Healthcare has no relationship with capitalism. It is a false association that causes our problems and the reason why the rest of the industrial world has socialized their healthcare.

Many a genius who has changed the world would have been lost if not for care they received while sick...

Going back in time to when we were simple tribes...even then we knew that feeding and healing a sick hunter and having them return to hunting was good for EVERYONE in the village...dragging them to the village edge when sick made for extinction.

Don't confuse the meaning of "SOCIETY"...SOCIETY is entirely premised on helping the least of us so that they can one day help all of us.

a reply to: NotToday

What are your views on eugenics?

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: NotToday
I don't understand what's wrong with the get a job and pay for your own healthcare plan? Unless someone's disabled or under 18 I don't see the benefit of providing them care if they can't afford it themselves? Hasn't society already made the decision their utility is not worthy of care?

For one, it's not affordable. 40% of the country makes under $10/hour, and a lot of them live in large cities where you have 3 people sharing a 1 bedroom apartment in order to cover rent. You should be able to cover insurance on 10% of your wages, but at $10/hour without taking taxes into account that would only give you a premium of $173/month. Insurance costs more than that.

If it was not affordable how was 85% the population insured the year before Obamacare? I don't think we should subsidize people's poor life decisions and lack of societial worth. There's a reason the US has the best healthcare in the world for those who can afford it and it's not because we limit profit and costs.

The US has the best Healthcare in the world?

Yes, for those who can afford it. The US has the worlds the best hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, and university research system.

Just bc its the best and most expensive healthcare does not mean its the best system. The best system would be for it to be affordable for everyone and free for the poor.

If we leave out the poor, we are leaving weakness in the system, room for disease to spread and possibly new diseases to brew that have no cure.

No, the best system would be more affordable to everyone and let nature take its course on the people WHO SOCIETY HAS ALREADY DEEMED WORTHLESS. If we care for people that provide little to no benefit to society we are perpetuating weakness.

lol, when did society deem any group of people "worthless"?

I personally think people like you are worthless but I still want you to take care of yourself and have healthcare.

When society refused to pay them enough to afford their own healthcare. You can think of me what you like but society likes what I've got to offer to it and that's more important.

Newsflash, society has never deemed any group of people worthless, that would just be you and probably like-minded cohorts. I don't know what you offer nor do I care, but your attitude on this anonymous forum board stinks and says a lot about you.

There is a remarkably simple solution to this issue that the Right could get behind without a problem. First, keep in mind why any 'universal healthcare system' is needed in the first place. 'Back in the day' employers paid nearly all of your health insurance as part of your 'employee benefits'. That has all but vanished these days and people on the lower end of the economic ladder --- working people --- simply cannot shell out the kind of money it takes to pay for private insurance. So they don't. So they don't get any preventative healthcare. And when they get sick they show-up at the nearest Emergency Department. Not having had any preventative care they are in worse shape then they need be and their emergent care is much more costly. But they have no insurance and cannot pay out-of-pocket, so they stiff the hospital.

This became rampant over the last couple of decades. Now, in a 'normal' business environment those losses would simply be passed on to paying customers. But not in healthcare. Insurance companies set reimbursement rates for the hospitals so they cannot set their own prices. They have to take the losses. And they have been. And they have been closing at an historically unprecedented and accelerating rate. And the trend is --- understandably --- worse in rural and lower economic areas. This forces people to drive further and further in the middle of the night to the nearest hospital when their 3yo is having a life-threatening asthma attack. But I digress...

Hospitals are prevented by law from turning away a person who cannot pay for treatment. They must treat anyone who is gravely ill. And because of the legal liability, they are reluctant to turn away people who don't appear to be gravely ill.

So by now it should be obvious what the Right should do. Allow hospitals to turn away anyone who cannot show them the money, either via insurance or by cash / credit card. If you have no means of paying for your care, tough noogies. That simple solution will save the hospitals and eliminate the need for any 'universal healthcare'. Sure, lots of less fortunate people will die and be gravely ill but who cares? I know MY healthcare is covered.

a reply to: jtma508

I can't tell if this is facetious or not.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: jtma508

I can't tell if this is facetious or not.

Good ole Social Darwinism right? Can't afford your hospital bills? Well you should have been born into a situation that offered better life benefits. Go # yourself!

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: NotToday

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: NotToday
I don't understand what's wrong with the get a job and pay for your own healthcare plan? Unless someone's disabled or under 18 I don't see the benefit of providing them care if they can't afford it themselves? Hasn't society already made the decision their utility is not worthy of care?

For one, it's not affordable. 40% of the country makes under $10/hour, and a lot of them live in large cities where you have 3 people sharing a 1 bedroom apartment in order to cover rent. You should be able to cover insurance on 10% of your wages, but at $10/hour without taking taxes into account that would only give you a premium of $173/month. Insurance costs more than that.

If it was not affordable how was 85% the population insured the year before Obamacare? I don't think we should subsidize people's poor life decisions and lack of societial worth. There's a reason the US has the best healthcare in the world for those who can afford it and it's not because we limit profit and costs.

The US has the best Healthcare in the world?

Yes, for those who can afford it. The US has the worlds the best hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, and university research system.

Source?



Most pharmaceutical companys are multinational (i should know i worked in it for 8 years!)



And if your hospitals are so great then why is the US average life expectancy one of the lowest out of the western world?

And who gives a # if you have one or two amazing hospitals that 99.9% of the population wont ever step foot in ?

If i am dying of cancer and cant afford the treatment I am not going to be proud that my country has a few world leading hospitals that will keep the likes of soros or the bushes alive intil they are 100+

Hell unless you are a multimillionair i doubt you would be let in the doors of those hospitals unless its to empty bed pans!


And I will let you in on a little secret......the USA isnt the only countrys with hospitals like that. You find them in the UK, Germany , Switzerland, France and every other rich country. Its just no one gives much of a # about those rich hospitals as every day people get decent healthcare too.

originally posted by: Edumakated


UK at 18... yet in spite of socialized medicine, they can't keep all their teeth.

Resorting to dumb stereotypes started by the simpsons = Fail of your argument.