@jjstraka34
Notice, you don't find me criticizing Obama. That's mostly because he was milktoast as a president. He could have tried to accomplish much more, except 'idealist'. I might have bitched more about him if he'd been more liberal, but maybe a few of your ideas would have at least been tried out...
Well this is my entire point. The signature piece of legislation that was passed in his terms was conservative in nature (as far as health plans go). His temperament was unbelievably conservative. He didn't f**k around with any interns or pornstars. He is by every piece of available evidence a loving father and husband. For the most part, he kept the Bush Administration national security apparatus in place, so the whole "Republicans will keep us safe and Democrats won't" crowd doesn't have anything to stand on there either. He greenlit a raid on Bin Laden that, if it had failed, would have doomed his re-election chances. Point being, as even you yourself will admit, he wasn't even that liberal. What he REPRESENTED was liberal, but the man and his policies themselves were straight down the middle of the road. So when I search for an explanation as to WHY the reaction to him on most of the right was so strong, there is really only one thing I can come up with. And you're right, it was his greatest weakness. I still believe he should have made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court when the Senate refused to even hold hearings on ANY nominee he put up. But I knew he wouldn't, it was never in his nature.
But aside from that, he only really had two years to do anything legislatively before the Tea Party took over. And what they chose to do was the stimulus package (which was a FAR greater middle and lower-class tax cut than the Trump one could ever hope to be), and they did the ACA. And since one of those debates consumed at least half a year if not longer, I'm not sure what other ideas could have been tried out. The ideas were that Keynesian economics was the only thing that could save the economy in the state it was in (which was true) and that it would be better to do something about healthcare than stick to the status quo. After 2010, there were no more opportunities. The first 6 months had to be entirely focused on getting the car out of the ditch and back on the road, and the choice was to spend the next year on healthcare. Neither were earth-shaking in say, the way FDR was. But FDR was about 1 or 2 steps away from being a near dictator himself at certain points (in fact, given the circumstances of the Great Depression, he could have easily done so and hardly anyone would have objected).
I don't even know where I'm going with this, but I think the main point may be that no matter what the American electorate SAYS about wanting a guy who is a centrist to be in charge, it clearly isn't true because they HAD that guy for 8 years in a row, then turned around and elected a maniac.
@jjstraka34
Notice, you don't find me criticizing Obama. That's mostly because he was milktoast as a president. He could have tried to accomplish much more, except 'idealist'. I might have bitched more about him if he'd been more liberal, but maybe a few of your ideas would have at least been tried out...
Well this is my entire point. The signature piece of legislation that was passed in his terms was conservative in nature (as far as health plans go). His temperament was unbelievably conservative. He didn't f**k around with any interns or pornstars. He is by every piece of available evidence a loving father and husband. For the most part, he kept the Bush Administration national security apparatus in place, so the whole "Republicans will keep us safe and Democrats won't" crowd doesn't have anything to stand on their either. He greenlit a raid on Bin Laden that, if it had failed, would have doomed is re-election chances. Point being, as even you yourself will admit, he wasn't even that liberal. What he REPRESENTED was liberal, but the man and his policies themselves were straight down the middle of the road. So when I search for an explanation as to WHY the reaction to him on most of the right was so strong, there is really only one thing I can come up with. And you're right, it was his greatest weakness. I still believe he should have made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court when the Senate refused to even hold hearings on ANY nominee he put it. But I knew he wouldn't, it was never in his nature.
But aside from that, he only really had two years to do anything legislatively before the Tea Party took over. And what they choose to do was the stimulus package (which was a FAR greater middle and lower-class tax cut than the Trump one could ever hope to be), and they did the ACA. And since one of those debates consumed at least half a year if not longer, I'm not sure what other ideas could have been tried out. The ideas were that Keynesian economics was the only thing that could save the economy in the state it was in (which was true) and that it would be better to do something about healthcare than stick to the status quo. After 2010, there were no more opportunities. The first 6 months had to be entirely focused on getting the car out of the ditch and back on the road, and the choice was to spend the next year on healthcare. Neither were earth-shaking in say, the way FDR was. But FDR was about 1 or 2 steps away from being a near dictator himself at certain points (in fact, given the circumstances of the Great Depression, he could have easily done so and hardly anyone would have objected).
I don't even know where I'm going with this, but I think the main point may be that no matter what the American electorate SAYS about wanting a guy who is a centrist to be in charge, it clearly isn't true because they HAD that guy for 8 years in a row, then turned around and elected a maniac.
I would argue that we need a centrist conservative. Say what you want but conservatives are far less concerned about what people think of them in the short term. I can't get what I want with Trump in power though, so the next best thing in my view is a far-left liberal. I personally believe that far-left liberal ideas don't work, but it hasn't been 'proven' yet. I'd like to lay that to rest once and for all and I just might be willing to gamble on it.
So far all I have is which party can get the most ignorant votes every two to four years because ignorant votes is all one needs to take power. That is ultimately what I would like to see change. Enlightened voters would never have had to choose between Trump and Clinton because neither were good candidates. Obama vs. McCain or Bush Sr. vs. Bill Clinton were far better choices in my opinion. We desperately need to get back to those days...
@Balrog99 "Obamacare is way too fucking expensive to be a major accomplishment."
How do you mean? My family only had insurance at all for a period of time because of ObamaCare. Everything ELSE was too expensive.
Too expensive for most people is what I mean. They had the chance for something bigger and that's all you got. I have no clue how much my insurance costs me because it's part of my 'total package'. I'm actually OK with 'healthcare for all' as long as I'm only charged for the difference between my healthcare and what it costs for other people. I'm just of the opinion that they'll charge me the same as everybody else and my company will be scott-free. I think that's why my company is all for universal health-care. Not because they give a shit about anybody without it, but because they can save a buck by screwing me. The Democrats so far have not addressed that as far as I know. I think they're controlled by corporate interests almost as much as the Repubs. They're just more clever about it because they have to be...
@jjstraka34
Notice, you don't find me criticizing Obama. That's mostly because he was milktoast as a president. He could have tried to accomplish much more, except 'idealist'. I might have bitched more about him if he'd been more liberal, but maybe a few of your ideas would have at least been tried out...
@jjstraka34
Notice, you don't find me criticizing Obama. That's mostly because he was milktoast as a president. He could have tried to accomplish much more, except 'idealist'. I might have bitched more about him if he'd been more liberal, but maybe a few of your ideas would have at least been tried out...
I don't even know where I'm going with this, but I think the main point may be that no matter what the American electorate SAYS about wanting a guy who is a centrist to be in charge, it clearly isn't true because they HAD that guy for 8 years in a row, then turned around and elected a maniac.
The 'American electorate' seems to be split between 33% who think that the government is the Anti-Christ and 33% who think that working people should fund their pot-smoking, or furthering their 'liberal-arts' educations while contributing nothing to society. The other 34% either don't give a shit, or vote with the wind depending on which political ad they see last before voting.
Edit: Upon further thought, considering it's a rare election where we even get 60% voter turn-out, the 'don't give a shit' folks are probably at least a third of the people by themselves...
@jjstraka34
Notice, you don't find me criticizing Obama. That's mostly because he was milktoast as a president. He could have tried to accomplish much more, except 'idealist'. I might have bitched more about him if he'd been more liberal, but maybe a few of your ideas would have at least been tried out...
I presume you mean milquetoast?
Arghhh, a rare grammar mistake on my part. That's going to bug me. Thanks a lot @Quickblade!
@Balrog99 "Obamacare is way too fucking expensive to be a major accomplishment."
How do you mean? My family only had insurance at all for a period of time because of ObamaCare. Everything ELSE was too expensive.
Too expensive for most people is what I mean. They had the chance for something bigger and that's all you got. I have no clue how much my insurance costs me because it's part of my 'total package'. I'm actually OK with 'healthcare for all' as long as I'm only charged for the difference between my healthcare and what it costs for other people. I'm just of the opinion that they'll charge me the same as everybody else and my company will be scott-free. I think that's why my company is all for universal health-care. Not because they give a shit about anybody without it, but because they can save a buck by screwing me. The Democrats so far have not addressed that as far as I know. I think they're controlled by corporate interests almost as much as the Repubs. They're just more clever about it because they have to be...
But Obamacare made healtcare affordable for the first time for 20 million people. I still don't understand what you are saying.
@Balrog99 "Obamacare is way too fucking expensive to be a major accomplishment."
How do you mean? My family only had insurance at all for a period of time because of ObamaCare. Everything ELSE was too expensive.
Too expensive for most people is what I mean. They had the chance for something bigger and that's all you got. I have no clue how much my insurance costs me because it's part of my 'total package'. I'm actually OK with 'healthcare for all' as long as I'm only charged for the difference between my healthcare and what it costs for other people. I'm just of the opinion that they'll charge me the same as everybody else and my company will be scott-free. I think that's why my company is all for universal health-care. Not because they give a shit about anybody without it, but because they can save a buck by screwing me. The Democrats so far have not addressed that as far as I know. I think they're controlled by corporate interests almost as much as the Repubs. They're just more clever about it because they have to be...
But Obamacare made healtcare affordable for the first time for 20 million people. I still don't understand what you are saying.
Define 'affordable' and then tell me how much more or less it costs you than it does me. I doubt you can because I don't even know. The fact that it's 'expensive' is because it's a sham. They (the all-encompassing 'they') couldn't charge the exorbitant prices they do without the bloody 'insurance' companies to hide behind. They wouldnt make a fucking dime if they tried to charge what they do without the cover of 'insurance'. It's a disgusting scam just like all 'insurance'. They ensure that they make money off of people's fear with their 'insurance'. The fact that people are forced to have it makes it even worse...
The 'American electorate' seems to be split between 33% who think that the government is the Anti-Christ and 33% who think that working people should fund their pot-smoking, or furthering their 'liberal-arts' educations while contributing nothing to society.
I think the source of your ideas about the American electorate might be a bit too "fair and balanced."
But Obamacare made healtcare affordable for the first time for 20 million people. I still don't understand what you are saying.
Define 'affordable'
Affordable: you can include sufficient health coverage in your monthly budget that will prevent a car accident from destroying your life and the lives of your children.
There I defined affordable.
What about the 99.999% of people who never need it? I've got a better idea than 'insurance'. How about in the day and age of everybody having a supercomputer at their fingertips, people ask for donations instead of relying on an insurance company and lawyers to pay for things? Insurance is the biggest scam in history and everybody just buys into the fact that we somehow 'need' it. I call bullshit. Look at the money everyday people are willing to throw away on charities that are far less deserving of their money than people who truly need it. God, I'm sounding like an idealist myself. It's because I really hate insurance companies...
The 'American electorate' seems to be split between 33% who think that the government is the Anti-Christ and 33% who think that working people should fund their pot-smoking, or furthering their 'liberal-arts' educations while contributing nothing to society.
I think the source of your ideas about the American electorate might be a bit too "fair and balanced."
But Obamacare made healtcare affordable for the first time for 20 million people. I still don't understand what you are saying.
Define 'affordable'
Affordable: you can include sufficient health coverage in your monthly budget that will prevent a car accident from destroying your life and the lives of your children.
There I defined affordable.
What about the 99.999% of people who never need it? I've got a better idea than 'insurance'. How about in the day and age of everybody having a supercomputer at their fingertips, people ask for donations instead of relying on an insurance company and lawyers to pay for things? Insurance is the biggest scam in history and everybody just buys into the fact that we somehow 'need' it. I call bullshit. Look at the money everyday people are willing to throw away on charities that are far less deserving of their money than people who truly need it. God, I'm sounding like an idealist myself. It's because I really hate insurance companies...
Well, maybe in some world that would work, but then I saw THIS the other day:
Now, maybe someone knows more about maternity care and hospital billing than I do, but it seems for all the world as if this hospital is charging $40 to allow a mother to hold her newborn child after birth. And if THAT has become monetized, then I'd say it's high time the government just steps in and takes over the whole damn thing. What is this bullshit??
I mean, this is going well beyond the $20 Advil or a $60 pregnancy test kit. This is just making shit up out of thin air and charging someone for it. As if the $3100 dollars for the C-section isn't enough, they are going to charge another $40 to.....what exactly?? Wipe the baby off with a towel before they hand it to the mother?? Why don't we just start charging hospital patients $15 dollars every time they have to flush the toilet in their bathroom when they have to take a piss. $10 to use the faucet to brush their teeth every night. $1 every time they use the TV remote to change a channel. I'm sure we can come up with even MORE creative ways to steal money from people in their most vulnerable moments.
@Balrog99: You are completely right about the insurance industry. By definition, the only way for an insurance company to profit is to leech money from their customers. They don't provide a service or create a product; they just shuffle money around. They're a necessary evil in the sense that individuals and small businesses can't absorb certain risks, but the business model is inherently parasitic, and when you have multiple profit-based insurance organizations in competition with each other, the only way one of them can survive is to get better at (1) cheating their customers by charging high premiums, (2) refusing to pay when disaster strikes, and (3) tricking customers into choosing them over other insurance providers by creating slicker ad campaigns.
As it happens, casinos also rely exclusively on those exact same three strategies to earn a profit: charge as much as possible to participate, pay back as little as possible, and use shinier facilities to lure people in. The only difference is that casinos prey on addiction, where insurance companies prey on desperation.
In both cases, the nature of the industry means that only the companies that are worst for consumers can grow and profit.
This is precisely why a single-payer health care system is so much cheaper than our current one. Unlike a private corporation, the government doesn't need to earn a profit or enrich its CEO or its stockholders. A non-profit insurance agency would have no incentive to screw people over or skim money off the top, and with taxpayer support, that agency could actually survive, where it would otherwise get crushed in the free market.
Better still, the government can negotiate prices directly, like they do with Medicare. In @jjstraka34's example above, the government would be fronting the cost of these hospital visits, and it can simply set a standard rate for delivering pregnancies. It's not like a hospital could force the government to pay some spurious expense; it doesn't have the power.
It's worth noting that casinos will do just about anything to keep you in the casino pumping money into the machines and tables, to the point where they have absolutely no problem comping free hotel rooms and food on a regular basis. The $100 a night and the $20 for your meal is nothing if they (usually by way of a player's card) can reasonably assume you are gonna spend the entire weekend on the floor. As a matter of fact, whenever I would visit the town where my grandmother and most of my mother's side of the family lived in recent years (they have a casino, and I actually was a valet there in the past), I NEVER had to actually pay for a hotel room, because my grandma always had multiple free rooms that I could use. And even when my grandmother died, the night I drove up to see her when she was in the last stages of hospice, I STILL didn't have to pay for the a hotel that night because my aunt and uncle from the Twin Cities ALSO had a free room, in addition to the one they were already using for the night.
@jjstraka34
Notice, you don't find me criticizing Obama. That's mostly because he was milktoast as a president. He could have tried to accomplish much more, except 'idealist'. I might have bitched more about him if he'd been more liberal, but maybe a few of your ideas would have at least been tried out...
I presume you mean milquetoast?
Arghhh, a rare grammar mistake on my part. That's going to bug me. Thanks a lot @Quickblade!
This video clip contrasts the attitude to scandals in the US and Canada. In Canada Trudeau is in trouble over concerns that he's interfered in the judicial process over SNC Lavalin. Meanwhile, in the US Trump interferes in all sorts of judicial matters on pretty much a daily basis - and no-one even blinks an eye about that any more. There's nothing new about that of course, but I think it is helpful as a reminder of just what a truly weird state the governance of the US is in at the moment.
The 'American electorate' seems to be split between 33% who think that the government is the Anti-Christ and 33% who think that working people should fund their pot-smoking, or furthering their 'liberal-arts' educations while contributing nothing to society.
I think the source of your ideas about the American electorate might be a bit too "fair and balanced."
But Obamacare made healtcare affordable for the first time for 20 million people. I still don't understand what you are saying.
Define 'affordable'
Affordable: you can include sufficient health coverage in your monthly budget that will prevent a car accident from destroying your life and the lives of your children.
There I defined affordable.
What about the 99.999% of people who never need it? I've got a better idea than 'insurance'. How about in the day and age of everybody having a supercomputer at their fingertips, people ask for donations instead of relying on an insurance company and lawyers to pay for things? Insurance is the biggest scam in history and everybody just buys into the fact that we somehow 'need' it. I call bullshit. Look at the money everyday people are willing to throw away on charities that are far less deserving of their money than people who truly need it. God, I'm sounding like an idealist myself. It's because I really hate insurance companies...
Over their whole lives I suspect that it's far nearer 0.001% of people that never need a health service .
In relation to your point in other posts about trying out extremes, I think that centrist policies generally make much more sense than extremist ones and wouldn't want to try the latter just as an experiment - I don't subscribe to the view that things can only get better . The issue of course is what constitutes 'centrist'. In the US Obamacare was portrayed for years as a radical left-wing policy (though that's changed relatively recently), while essentially the entire rest of the world would view it as a radical right-wing policy. Historically the US public has tended not to be very interested in what's happening in the rest of the world. I would be interested to see in the next presidential election if there's anyone brave and forceful enough to move the debate to address just what it is about the US that makes policies accepted everywhere else so unsuitable at home.
The 'American electorate' seems to be split between 33% who think that the government is the Anti-Christ and 33% who think that working people should fund their pot-smoking, or furthering their 'liberal-arts' educations while contributing nothing to society.
I think the source of your ideas about the American electorate might be a bit too "fair and balanced."
But Obamacare made healtcare affordable for the first time for 20 million people. I still don't understand what you are saying.
Define 'affordable'
Affordable: you can include sufficient health coverage in your monthly budget that will prevent a car accident from destroying your life and the lives of your children.
There I defined affordable.
What about the 99.999% of people who never need it? I've got a better idea than 'insurance'. How about in the day and age of everybody having a supercomputer at their fingertips, people ask for donations instead of relying on an insurance company and lawyers to pay for things? Insurance is the biggest scam in history and everybody just buys into the fact that we somehow 'need' it. I call bullshit. Look at the money everyday people are willing to throw away on charities that are far less deserving of their money than people who truly need it. God, I'm sounding like an idealist myself. It's because I really hate insurance companies...
Over their whole lives I suspect that it's far nearer 0.001% of people that never need a health service .
I'm talking about catastrophic injuries that would bankrupt an entire household, not a yearly check-up or having a wart removed...
Catastrophic injuries may be relatively rare, though I suspect still far more common than you suggested. This site refers to 4.6m people receiving medical attention in 2017 just as a result of vehicle incidents in the US. While a large majority of those will be minor I'm sure there's a significant number that were not and I don't think the chance of serious injury over a lifetime would be rare at all.
More to the point though, the need for medical attention is not solely, or even mainly, as a result of serious injury. The chance of needing major medical attention at some point in your life from any cause will certainly be high, but those needs will never be well met by unregulated private markets. In a nutshell the problem goes like this:
- insurance providers generally look at certain risks, such as the need to provide long-term care, and decide that the cost of insurance for that would be too great and therefore don't offer it.
- that leaves a gap in the market that an aggressive risk-taker might theoretically go for.
- as an effective monopoly that company would receive a lot of business, but from a skewed population, i.e. those who recognize they are more likely to need care. This means their business is likely to quite quickly fail or withdraw from the market.
- in order to be successful an insurance company needs to balance higher and lower risks, but that can't be done in a market where there's high competition for low-risk premiums and low competition for high-risk premiums (unless there's government intervention of some kind).
Another problem with an insurance type arrangement is that it allows providers of insurance to exclude many medical needs and avoid liability through the use of 'clever' definitions, i.e. those that lead you to believe you will be covered in circumstances where in fact you will not be. The difficulty in determining what insurance you need is another reason for government intervention.
It's definitely a high percentage. Cancer is responsible for about 20% of deaths in the US, and you rarely die of cancer without receiving long and costly treatments before.
Heart disease is another 23% - while this will include people with who die suddenly, many of those patients have costly treatments before as well (including heart surgery and in some cases even transplants).
Another ~6% die of chronic respiratory disease, which usually includes year-long treatment of Asthma and the like.
Any complications in childbirth also lead to costs that can be described as catastrophic for many families.
You get the bill and it's like click-bait. "You'll be shocked to see how much you owe! Open to page seven to find out!"
Yeah, and then they try to bill (bilk?) you a second time in my experience. It's an easy way to take advantage of the elderly and lower intellect folks so why not try to get paid twice? It only costs the assholes a stamp...
@Balrog99 Affordable is really simple. I could not afford healthcare before. Obamacare dropped, and then I could. See? Affordable, because I could afford it.
An interesting video about two refugees, one from Bosnia and one from Middle east talking about many topics. I don't agree with everything but is very interesting.
Arround 29 min, he said that colonialism was good and i kind agree. What are the best places to live in Latin America? Exactly the British/French territories. French Guiana is far more developed than any neighbor country
@Balrog99 Affordable is really simple. I could not afford healthcare before. Obamacare dropped, and then I could. See? Affordable, because I could afford it.
I seem to remember a couple of years back you saying you had fallen through the exchanges because of your income level and weren't eligible for subsidies. Did something change, or am I mistaken?? I swear it was you who had this unfortunate issue.
@Balrog99 Affordable is really simple. I could not afford healthcare before. Obamacare dropped, and then I could. See? Affordable, because I could afford it.
I seem to remember a couple of years back you saying you had fallen through the exchanges because of your income level and weren't eligible for subsidies. Did something change, or am I mistaken?? I swear it was you who had this unfortunate issue.
Yeah, that was a couple years later, when my wife lost her job. At that point, I was just stalling as long as I could before being evicted. We might have qualified for Medicaid at that point, but we didn't know that at the time. My wife's asthma medication cost $600 a month, and it was life saving stuff. If we didn't have Obamacare for two years, she might not be here. In the year between losing health insurance and my son's birth, we limped along by rationing it.
@Balrog99 Affordable is really simple. I could not afford healthcare before. Obamacare dropped, and then I could. See? Affordable, because I could afford it.
I seem to remember a couple of years back you saying you had fallen through the exchanges because of your income level and weren't eligible for subsidies. Did something change, or am I mistaken?? I swear it was you who had this unfortunate issue.
Yeah, that was a couple years later, when my wife lost her job. At that point, I was just stalling as long as I could before being evicted. We might have qualified for Medicaid at that point, but we didn't know that at the time. My wife's asthma medication cost $600 a month, and it was life saving stuff. If we didn't have Obamacare for two years, she might not be here. In the year between losing health insurance and my son's birth, we limped along by rationing it.
I'm glad to hear it helped you out. My point is only that it could have been more. Yes, it may be mostly the fault of Republicans but I've yet to hear an honest accounting from the Democrats on how to pay for healthcare for all. Just lies about 'keeping your doctor' and 'the rich' will pay for it somehow and 'we know we want it even though we won't read it before we pass it'.
Maybe we can discuss how to pay for this without mucking up everything in the process. I won't be interested in being charged for something I'm getting through my company. That would be double-charging me if my corporation gets to bow out for nothing (taking away my current benefit which really should be part of my salary, but isn't, and then charging me for that selfsame benefit).
If you want to know how to socialize healthcare, have a look at the developed world. We've already done it
How does it work? If you don't mind my asking...
We already put money into Medicaire/Medicaid that we can't start using until we're 62 1/2, or are disabled. How much more are we talking about to cover from day 1?
Comments
Well this is my entire point. The signature piece of legislation that was passed in his terms was conservative in nature (as far as health plans go). His temperament was unbelievably conservative. He didn't f**k around with any interns or pornstars. He is by every piece of available evidence a loving father and husband. For the most part, he kept the Bush Administration national security apparatus in place, so the whole "Republicans will keep us safe and Democrats won't" crowd doesn't have anything to stand on there either. He greenlit a raid on Bin Laden that, if it had failed, would have doomed his re-election chances. Point being, as even you yourself will admit, he wasn't even that liberal. What he REPRESENTED was liberal, but the man and his policies themselves were straight down the middle of the road. So when I search for an explanation as to WHY the reaction to him on most of the right was so strong, there is really only one thing I can come up with. And you're right, it was his greatest weakness. I still believe he should have made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court when the Senate refused to even hold hearings on ANY nominee he put up. But I knew he wouldn't, it was never in his nature.
But aside from that, he only really had two years to do anything legislatively before the Tea Party took over. And what they chose to do was the stimulus package (which was a FAR greater middle and lower-class tax cut than the Trump one could ever hope to be), and they did the ACA. And since one of those debates consumed at least half a year if not longer, I'm not sure what other ideas could have been tried out. The ideas were that Keynesian economics was the only thing that could save the economy in the state it was in (which was true) and that it would be better to do something about healthcare than stick to the status quo. After 2010, there were no more opportunities. The first 6 months had to be entirely focused on getting the car out of the ditch and back on the road, and the choice was to spend the next year on healthcare. Neither were earth-shaking in say, the way FDR was. But FDR was about 1 or 2 steps away from being a near dictator himself at certain points (in fact, given the circumstances of the Great Depression, he could have easily done so and hardly anyone would have objected).
I don't even know where I'm going with this, but I think the main point may be that no matter what the American electorate SAYS about wanting a guy who is a centrist to be in charge, it clearly isn't true because they HAD that guy for 8 years in a row, then turned around and elected a maniac.
I would argue that we need a centrist conservative. Say what you want but conservatives are far less concerned about what people think of them in the short term. I can't get what I want with Trump in power though, so the next best thing in my view is a far-left liberal. I personally believe that far-left liberal ideas don't work, but it hasn't been 'proven' yet. I'd like to lay that to rest once and for all and I just might be willing to gamble on it.
So far all I have is which party can get the most ignorant votes every two to four years because ignorant votes is all one needs to take power. That is ultimately what I would like to see change. Enlightened voters would never have had to choose between Trump and Clinton because neither were good candidates. Obama vs. McCain or Bush Sr. vs. Bill Clinton were far better choices in my opinion. We desperately need to get back to those days...
How do you mean? My family only had insurance at all for a period of time because of ObamaCare. Everything ELSE was too expensive.
Too expensive for most people is what I mean. They had the chance for something bigger and that's all you got. I have no clue how much my insurance costs me because it's part of my 'total package'. I'm actually OK with 'healthcare for all' as long as I'm only charged for the difference between my healthcare and what it costs for other people. I'm just of the opinion that they'll charge me the same as everybody else and my company will be scott-free. I think that's why my company is all for universal health-care. Not because they give a shit about anybody without it, but because they can save a buck by screwing me. The Democrats so far have not addressed that as far as I know. I think they're controlled by corporate interests almost as much as the Repubs. They're just more clever about it because they have to be...
I presume you mean milquetoast?
The 'American electorate' seems to be split between 33% who think that the government is the Anti-Christ and 33% who think that working people should fund their pot-smoking, or furthering their 'liberal-arts' educations while contributing nothing to society. The other 34% either don't give a shit, or vote with the wind depending on which political ad they see last before voting.
Edit: Upon further thought, considering it's a rare election where we even get 60% voter turn-out, the 'don't give a shit' folks are probably at least a third of the people by themselves...
Arghhh, a rare grammar mistake on my part. That's going to bug me. Thanks a lot @Quickblade!
But Obamacare made healtcare affordable for the first time for 20 million people. I still don't understand what you are saying.
Define 'affordable' and then tell me how much more or less it costs you than it does me. I doubt you can because I don't even know. The fact that it's 'expensive' is because it's a sham. They (the all-encompassing 'they') couldn't charge the exorbitant prices they do without the bloody 'insurance' companies to hide behind. They wouldnt make a fucking dime if they tried to charge what they do without the cover of 'insurance'. It's a disgusting scam just like all 'insurance'. They ensure that they make money off of people's fear with their 'insurance'. The fact that people are forced to have it makes it even worse...
What about the 99.999% of people who never need it? I've got a better idea than 'insurance'. How about in the day and age of everybody having a supercomputer at their fingertips, people ask for donations instead of relying on an insurance company and lawyers to pay for things? Insurance is the biggest scam in history and everybody just buys into the fact that we somehow 'need' it. I call bullshit. Look at the money everyday people are willing to throw away on charities that are far less deserving of their money than people who truly need it. God, I'm sounding like an idealist myself. It's because I really hate insurance companies...
Well, maybe in some world that would work, but then I saw THIS the other day:
Now, maybe someone knows more about maternity care and hospital billing than I do, but it seems for all the world as if this hospital is charging $40 to allow a mother to hold her newborn child after birth. And if THAT has become monetized, then I'd say it's high time the government just steps in and takes over the whole damn thing. What is this bullshit??
I mean, this is going well beyond the $20 Advil or a $60 pregnancy test kit. This is just making shit up out of thin air and charging someone for it. As if the $3100 dollars for the C-section isn't enough, they are going to charge another $40 to.....what exactly?? Wipe the baby off with a towel before they hand it to the mother?? Why don't we just start charging hospital patients $15 dollars every time they have to flush the toilet in their bathroom when they have to take a piss. $10 to use the faucet to brush their teeth every night. $1 every time they use the TV remote to change a channel. I'm sure we can come up with even MORE creative ways to steal money from people in their most vulnerable moments.
As it happens, casinos also rely exclusively on those exact same three strategies to earn a profit: charge as much as possible to participate, pay back as little as possible, and use shinier facilities to lure people in. The only difference is that casinos prey on addiction, where insurance companies prey on desperation.
In both cases, the nature of the industry means that only the companies that are worst for consumers can grow and profit.
This is precisely why a single-payer health care system is so much cheaper than our current one. Unlike a private corporation, the government doesn't need to earn a profit or enrich its CEO or its stockholders. A non-profit insurance agency would have no incentive to screw people over or skim money off the top, and with taxpayer support, that agency could actually survive, where it would otherwise get crushed in the free market.
Better still, the government can negotiate prices directly, like they do with Medicare. In @jjstraka34's example above, the government would be fronting the cost of these hospital visits, and it can simply set a standard rate for delivering pregnancies. It's not like a hospital could force the government to pay some spurious expense; it doesn't have the power.
that's not grammar, but orthography.
Over their whole lives I suspect that it's far nearer 0.001% of people that never need a health service
In relation to your point in other posts about trying out extremes, I think that centrist policies generally make much more sense than extremist ones and wouldn't want to try the latter just as an experiment - I don't subscribe to the view that things can only get better
I'm talking about catastrophic injuries that would bankrupt an entire household, not a yearly check-up or having a wart removed...
More to the point though, the need for medical attention is not solely, or even mainly, as a result of serious injury. The chance of needing major medical attention at some point in your life from any cause will certainly be high, but those needs will never be well met by unregulated private markets. In a nutshell the problem goes like this:
- insurance providers generally look at certain risks, such as the need to provide long-term care, and decide that the cost of insurance for that would be too great and therefore don't offer it.
- that leaves a gap in the market that an aggressive risk-taker might theoretically go for.
- as an effective monopoly that company would receive a lot of business, but from a skewed population, i.e. those who recognize they are more likely to need care. This means their business is likely to quite quickly fail or withdraw from the market.
- in order to be successful an insurance company needs to balance higher and lower risks, but that can't be done in a market where there's high competition for low-risk premiums and low competition for high-risk premiums (unless there's government intervention of some kind).
Another problem with an insurance type arrangement is that it allows providers of insurance to exclude many medical needs and avoid liability through the use of 'clever' definitions, i.e. those that lead you to believe you will be covered in circumstances where in fact you will not be. The difficulty in determining what insurance you need is another reason for government intervention.
Heart disease is another 23% - while this will include people with who die suddenly, many of those patients have costly treatments before as well (including heart surgery and in some cases even transplants).
Another ~6% die of chronic respiratory disease, which usually includes year-long treatment of Asthma and the like.
Any complications in childbirth also lead to costs that can be described as catastrophic for many families.
You get the bill and it's like click-bait. "You'll be shocked to see how much you owe! Open to page seven to find out!"
Yeah, and then they try to bill (bilk?) you a second time in my experience. It's an easy way to take advantage of the elderly and lower intellect folks so why not try to get paid twice? It only costs the assholes a stamp...
An interesting video about two refugees, one from Bosnia and one from Middle east talking about many topics. I don't agree with everything but is very interesting.
Arround 29 min, he said that colonialism was good and i kind agree. What are the best places to live in Latin America? Exactly the British/French territories. French Guiana is far more developed than any neighbor country
I seem to remember a couple of years back you saying you had fallen through the exchanges because of your income level and weren't eligible for subsidies. Did something change, or am I mistaken?? I swear it was you who had this unfortunate issue.
Yeah, that was a couple years later, when my wife lost her job. At that point, I was just stalling as long as I could before being evicted. We might have qualified for Medicaid at that point, but we didn't know that at the time. My wife's asthma medication cost $600 a month, and it was life saving stuff. If we didn't have Obamacare for two years, she might not be here. In the year between losing health insurance and my son's birth, we limped along by rationing it.
I'm glad to hear it helped you out. My point is only that it could have been more. Yes, it may be mostly the fault of Republicans but I've yet to hear an honest accounting from the Democrats on how to pay for healthcare for all. Just lies about 'keeping your doctor' and 'the rich' will pay for it somehow and 'we know we want it even though we won't read it before we pass it'.
Maybe we can discuss how to pay for this without mucking up everything in the process. I won't be interested in being charged for something I'm getting through my company. That would be double-charging me if my corporation gets to bow out for nothing (taking away my current benefit which really should be part of my salary, but isn't, and then charging me for that selfsame benefit).
How does it work? If you don't mind my asking...
We already put money into Medicaire/Medicaid that we can't start using until we're 62 1/2, or are disabled. How much more are we talking about to cover from day 1?