Healthcare Proposals to "replace" ACA in usa

[Elixir]

The Republican's* have a religious belief that government can do no good.

They are now in control of the government, and are validating that premise - BIGLY.

* Quit using apostrophes in plural forms: "Republicans" Grrrr. </GN>

 

[untermensche]

The Republican's* have a religious belief that government can do no good.

They are now in control of the government, and are validating that premise - BIGLY.

* Quit using apostrophes in plural forms: "Republicans" Grrrr. </GN>

Grammar is invented.

There is nothing real about it.

Understanding is all that matter's.

 

[LordKiran]

They are now in control of the government, and are validating that premise - BIGLY.

* Quit using apostrophes in plural forms: "Republicans" Grrrr. </GN>

Grammar is invented.

There is nothing real about it.

Understanding is all that matter's.

I'd argue meaning is what matters but that's honestly semantics. You'd also have a hard time making the case that a standardized language where everyone follows the same conventions doesn't make understanding that much easier.

 

[untermensche]

Grammar is invented.

There is nothing real about it.

Understanding is all that matter's.

I'd argue meaning is what matters but that's honestly semantics. You'd also have a hard time making the case that a standardized language where everyone follows the same conventions doesn't make understanding that much easier.

Do people on Twitter have problems without all the rules?

To have meaning merely means another can have understanding. You haven't offered an alternative.

 

[LordKiran]

I'd argue meaning is what matters but that's honestly semantics. You'd also have a hard time making the case that a standardized language where everyone follows the same conventions doesn't make understanding that much easier.

Do people on Twitter have problems without all the rules?

To have meaning merely means another can have understanding. You haven't offered an alternative.

Sometimes probably. But even then, within the context of twitter and the internet as a whole there are common conventions that are implicitly agreed upon by the majority.

 

[untermensche]

Do people on Twitter have problems without all the rules?

To have meaning merely means another can have understanding. You haven't offered an alternative.

Sometimes probably. But even then, within the context of twitter and the internet as a whole there are common conventions that are implicitly agreed upon by the majority.

You can't claim the old rules matter on one hand and then claim news rules were invented on the fly.

If new rules arrived the old rules clearly mean nothing.

There is no lower form of argument than pointing out grammatical errors.

 

[LordKiran]

Sometimes probably. But even then, within the context of twitter and the internet as a whole there are common conventions that are implicitly agreed upon by the majority.

You can't claim the old rules matter on one hand and then claim news rules were invented on the fly.

If new rules arrived the old rules clearly mean nothing.

There is no lower form of argument than pointing out grammatical errors.

Old. New. Whatever.

The point isn't which rule-set takes precedent. The point is having common rules and a standardized language increases our ability to accurately and effectively convey meaning.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Cost limits are necessary for any kind of care, including mental health.

A private system (mostly unregulated) + a public system (accountable to taxpayers) = optimum benefit to society

How about no regulation of the prices or setting the terms of what insurance companies are required to cover. Like forcing all policies to cover mental illness or sex changes or plastic surgery. Let consumers individually decide what they want to be covered for, not the politicians. (For the private system -- totally paid for privately.)

But tax-paid public system: free to patients, for all citizens who want to use it. Low-cost, avoidance of hi-tech exotic treatments, no fee-for-service.

Frankly I would say mental health is vastly underappreciated as a medical concern. The reason it needs to be included is that mental disorders are often pre-existing conditions, especially when they are chronic and/or diagnosed early.

Then include it in the public system.

But don't dictate to private individuals that they must have this coverage if they don't want to be covered for it. Let consumers choose what coverage they want, for private insurance, which should be voluntary.

For the public system, let the providers, paid a salary, make the decisions of what treatments get more or less priority. Provide a limited budget to the public system, and let the providers make the difficult cost-saving decisions.

It isn't at all reasonable that someone's ability to afford healthcare should be so negatively impacted by something they can't help.

No system is going to take care of everyone perfectly. People will die of conditions they "can't help" and which can't be cured or are too costly.

Let the mental patients be taken care of by the public system which will have some cost limits but will be able to provide some cost-effective treatments.

And leave the private system alone to the consumers and companies to decide whatever coverage is workable. Allow a consumer to choose only very limited coverage, excluding whatever care they don't want to pay for.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Private system = free choice of coverage. Public system = comprehensive, covers all, but with budget limits.

How about no regulation of the prices or setting the terms of what insurance companies are required to cover. Like forcing all policies to cover mental illness or sex changes or plastic surgery. Let consumers individually decide what they want to be covered for, not the politicians. (For the private system -- totally paid for privately.)

That is called paying cash as you go for only what affects you.
And it's been found to be a resounding disaster.

It's a "disaster" to let people be free to decide what they want to be insured for?

to buy private insurance to be covered for something of their choice? which might exclude something else they don't need coverage for? How can that be a "disaster"?

What if all they can afford is coverage for A, B, and C, but X and Y would make it too expensive. What is wrong with letting them buy coverage for A, B, and C, but exclude X and Y? You're saying they can't buy any coverage at all, unless they pay the extra thousands per year to be covered for X and Y which they don't want coverage for?

Especially for mental health which often strips a person of their savings before they realize they need a doctor.

Let the public system provide cost-effective mental health coverage. Let the providers make the difficult decisions within the limited budget.

It's inevitable that there will be limits at some point and that some conditions, for some cases, will not get all the treatment that is technologically possible.

 

[Rhea]

That is called paying cash as you go for only what affects you.
And it's been found to be a resounding disaster.

It's a "disaster" to let people be free to decide what they want to be insured for?

It was a disaster to expect individual people to be able to afford crisis care at unexpected times and regardless of howe many times they are hit with health crisis.

It caused people to die of treatable conditions regularly, including childbirth when they can't afford a hospital visit if needed.

to buy private insurance to be covered for something of their choice? which might exclude something else they don't need coverage for? How can that be a "disaster"?

It was a disaster when insurance companies contrived plans that covered _nothing_ but vague promises that were'nt ever intended to pay out. And individual people, without the time or expertise to understand the legalese found themselves making years of payments without any coverage.

What if all they can afford is coverage for A, B, and C, but X and Y would make it too expensive. What is wrong with letting them buy coverage for A, B, and C, but exclude X and Y? You're saying they can't buy any coverage at all, unless they pay the extra thousands per year to be covered for X and Y which they don't want coverage for?

One of the crazy myths of the anti-pool mindset is that if a lot of people have to buy coverage for sex change operations, but only a few people use it, the price for that coverage is prohibitive. That's not how math works.
If transgender surgery is covered and only 1000 people out of 360,000,000 use it, it is not an expensive coverage.
If contraception is covered but you don't use it, the incredible net cost savings bring the overall rates _down_ not up.
The cost of coverage is based on use. If it's a thing nobody uses, it's not expensive.

What's wrong with having people buy only what they think they need at the moment, is that you then get people signing up for coverage only when they expect a payout, creating cost for everyone in the end. Do you _really_ think insurance companies won't raise your overall premium if the are forced to give maternity coverage only to those who sign up when pregnant? If they, in other words, are forced to give payouts without ever getting revenue?

Don't be naive. Insurance works by having long term pay-in to cover the pay-outs. If you're allowed to sign up when you're 39 weeks pregnant, get the coverage and then go back to "only having the coverage you need," either prices go up for everyone to cover the payouts, even those without that coverage, or you lose the ability to get coverage when you have existing conditions.

IF we share costs for everything, then the premiums are lower for us all than if we picked and chose.
If we pick and choose, then EITHER premiums are sky-high and yes the insurance companies will spread it around as if you had coverage for stuff you don't want because we know they're not going to lose money on this OR those who discover cancer will never be able to get on and will die from lack of medical care.

There's no libertarian 3rd way. There's no insurance company in the world who will promise to keep your coverage free from the effects of losses on other policies.

Especially for mental health which often strips a person of their savings before they realize they need a doctor.

Let the public system provide cost-effective mental health coverage. Let the providers make the difficult decisions within the limited budget.

Aaah, so you see exactly why pooling is needed to keep our citizens healthy and safe. Why are you willing to see it here and not with broken bones or cancer?

It's inevitable that there will be limits at some point and that some conditions, for some cases, will not get all the treatment that is technologically possible.

I do not dispute this.
I advocate for comprehensive basic health care by pooled resources.
Health care beyond basic makes sense to have two-tiered. Or three. No objection.

 

[ZiprHead]

Another thing Lumpen doesn't understand, the concept of insurance.

 

[ZiprHead]

I hope people watched this. Bernie crushed Cruz.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/obamacare-cruz-sanders-highlights/index.html

 

[LordKiran]

I hope people watched this. Bernie crushed Cruz.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/obamacare-cruz-sanders-highlights/index.html

It's very telling that while Bernie is still out there fighting the good fight, Hillary is silently sitting in her corner tail between her legs, nursing her wounded pride. Goes to show she never had what it took to lead in the first place.

 

[blastula]

lol What do you think Clinton should be doing that would be effective and productive?

 

[Rhea]

I hope people watched this. Bernie crushed Cruz.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/obamacare-cruz-sanders-highlights/index.html

It's very telling that while Bernie is still out there fighting the good fight, Hillary is silently sitting in her corner tail between her legs, nursing her wounded pride. Goes to show she never had what it took to lead in the first place.

Bermnie would have served us all better if he had been out fighting the good fight earlier when he could have helped prevent Trump. Instead he spent too much time sitting in his corner, tail between his legs, cuddled up to hundreds of thousands of his most ardent supporters, collectively nursing their wounded pride.

I'm glad Bernie's out there now. I'm sick of hearing digs about Clinton who ran a terrific race which required a combined force of Bernie-pause, Putin, the FBI and press disengagement to beat her.

 

[LordKiran]

lol What do you think Clinton should be doing that would be effective and productive?

Presumably she still has a public profile and some credibility left, no? Use it! Attend and speak at demonstrations, or better yet, follow Bernie's lead and engage the Trump platform and the people backing him. Contribute to the national dialogue in some way.

- - - Updated - - -

It's very telling that while Bernie is still out there fighting the good fight, Hillary is silently sitting in her corner tail between her legs, nursing her wounded pride. Goes to show she never had what it took to lead in the first place.

Bermnie would have served us all better if he had been out fighting the good fight earlier when he could have helped prevent Trump. Instead he spent too much time sitting in his corner, tail between his legs, cuddled up to hundreds of thousands of his most ardent supporters, collectively nursing their wounded pride.

I'm glad Bernie's out there now. I'm sick of hearing digs about Clinton who ran a terrific race which required a combined force of Bernie-pause, Putin, the FBI and press disengagement to beat her.

Actually after the nomination process, Bernie started working on smaller scale projects with local communities focused on money in politics and the removal of corruption via legalized bribes. He hardly just shut himself away and stopped doing anything.

Also I agree, the campaign people worked like a well oiled machine, it's just a shame it was all in service to a sub-par candidate. Also the person who came up with their slogans was bad and should feel bad.

 

[blastula]

I doubt her appearance at a demonstration would help anybody but Trump. You know what would have helped much more is if liberals had voted for her instead of not voting or voting for someone else.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I hope people watched this. Bernie crushed Cruz.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/obamacare-cruz-sanders-highlights/index.html

It's very telling that while Bernie is still out there fighting the good fight, Hillary is silently sitting in her corner tail between her legs, nursing her wounded pride. Goes to show she never had what it took to lead in the first place.

Ummm....

She's hiding in another country so she doesn't get arrested. Don't you even read the National Enquirer?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

ACA replacement

 

[Elixir]

It's very telling that while Bernie is still out there fighting the good fight, Hillary is silently sitting in her corner tail between her legs, nursing her wounded pride. Goes to show she never had what it took to lead in the first place.

Ummm....

She's hiding in another country so she doesn't get arrested. Don't you even read the National Enquirer?

Good for her. She's a fucking albatross now - less is more, as far as her visibility goes.