What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Universal Health Care - Let's make this happen (1 Viewer)

Ramblin Wreck said:
Neither is putting words in my mouth.  But emoticon's are a form of communication.
Click to expand...
Claiming you didn't say something without clarifying what you meant isn't communication either. Throwing out a sentence that has pretty obvious insinuation to it, but then claiming that's not what you meant is probably the worst example of communication there is. It is literally just noise within the discussion. Nothing but noise. 

 
Politician Spock said:
Claiming you didn't say something without clarifying what you meant isn't communication either. Throwing out a sentence that has pretty obvious insinuation to it, but then claiming that's not what you meant is probably the worst example of communication there is. It is literally just noise within the discussion. Nothing but noise. 
Click to expand...
Whatever man.  You can move the goal posts around to disagree with the message, the point, the delivery or anything else.  I don't care.  It's a sports forum and you've been following me around for 2 days moving the goal posts.  99% of the posts in any political thread here is nothing but noise and nonsense if you take your blinders off.

 
So I'm assuming Trump supporters are for universal health care since Trump has endorsed it, right? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to clarify, are we talking about Universal Coverage here, or Socialized Medicine?  Those two aren't necessarily the same thing.  In fact, they aren't the same at all. 

 
matttyl said:
Just to clarify, are we talking about Universal Coverage here, or Socialized Medicine?  Those two aren't necessarily the same thing.  In fact, they aren't the same at all. 
Click to expand...
Some are talking about one, while some are talking about the other, and some are talking about other concepts entirely.  It's a problem in political debates generally, that people don't all use the same definitions when shortening large policy ideas to shorter labels.

 
Rich Conway said:
Some are talking about one, while some are talking about the other, and some are talking about other concepts entirely.  It's a problem in political debates generally, that people don't all use the same definitions when shortening large policy ideas to shorter labels.
Click to expand...
So the twitter problem - 150 characters (if that's what it is, I don't use Twitter) when 1,500 are needed.

Universal Health Care / Coverage - everyone has health insurance/coverage.  Can be done with everyone having insurance, or everyone have socialized medicine, or something else - but a situation in which everyone has some access to healthcare.  I think everyone is for this idea.  Certainly both candidate in the 2012 election.

Single Payer - one places pays for all care, likely the government who gets the funding for it through taxes.  Care could be socialized or not.

Socialized Medicine - takeover of the health care industry by the government. 

Just want to make sure people are arguing for or against the right things.

 
roadkill1292 said:
I'm assuming that by now anyone who says "death panels" in a post is just making a joke. But I've overestimated people in here before.
Click to expand...
It's probably not meant literally, but I don't think it's necessarily a "joke". At some point, someone somewhere has to say "enough", right?

 
roadkill1292 said:
Somebody somewhere does that now.
Click to expand...
So no difference? But I thought our system sucked?

I think you know the larger point- as much as it would be great for everyone to be covered for everything without restrictions/limits that just isn't realistic. How and where do we set the parameters?

 
humpback said:
So no difference? But I thought our system sucked?

I think you know the larger point- as much as it would be great for everyone to be covered for everything without restrictions/limits that just isn't realistic. How and where do we set the parameters?
Click to expand...
I think the larger point is something else. It's that opponents to a modern health care system keep bringing up some specter of faceless government officials having a regular Tuesday morning conference to decide who's plug gets pulled that week. It's a scare tactic and rightfully deserving of ridicule.

 
Politician Spock said:
Claiming you didn't say something without clarifying what you meant isn't communication either. Throwing out a sentence that has pretty obvious insinuation to it, but then claiming that's not what you meant is probably the worst example of communication there is. It is literally just noise within the discussion. Nothing but noise. 
Click to expand...
:yes:

:hifive:

 
roadkill1292 said:
I think the larger point is something else. It's that opponents to a modern health care system keep bringing up some specter of faceless government officials having a regular Tuesday morning conference to decide who's plug gets pulled that week. It's a scare tactic and rightfully deserving of ridicule.
Click to expand...
Sure, but once you get done ridiculing it as a scare tactic, it's also rightfully deserving of serious discussion IMO.

 
roadkill1292 said:
I think the larger point is something else. It's that opponents to a modern health care system keep bringing up some specter of faceless government officials having a regular Tuesday morning conference to decide who's plug gets pulled that week. It's a scare tactic and rightfully deserving of ridicule.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that extreme (I don't think you do either), but there will have to be some rationing of some sort.  Example - 3.2 million Americans have hep C.  There is a cure, actually 2 - Harvoni and Sovaldi.  The first costs $95,500, the second costs $84,000.  Does everyone with Hep C get the drug?  Who pays for it?  Even if everyone got the cheaper of the two options, that's over a quarter of a trillion dollars - for one specific thing that affects about 1% of the population. 

How about heart surgery (bypass) for coronary heart disease?  It affects 20% of the over 65 population and 7% of those 45 to 64 - and the average cost of the surgery is over $50k. 

Somewhere, someone has to decide who gets the Hep C drug and who doesn't, and who gets a bypass surgery and who doesn't.  These are just two examples, but you see the bigger situation from them, I hope. 

 
humpback said:
Sure, but once you get done ridiculing it as a scare tactic, it's also rightfully deserving of serious discussion IMO.
Click to expand...
That seems obvious.  In order to bring costs down there will have to be more guidelines with regard to standard of care.  That process right now is decentralized.  A public system would centralize it.  Either way, costs have to come down.

 
Ilov80s said:
He would have played really in the general, but he wasn't extreme enough for some of the nuts that drive the right. 
Click to expand...
There really is no chance nowadays that the person that wins the republican race isn't going to be straight up nuts.  There are lots of good, smart republicans but it will be a long time before they sniff leadership

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
brettdj said:
That will happen when the Insurance industry dies
Click to expand...
Health insurance companies are pretty much out of the insurance business already.   Their business is mostly to provide administrative services to "self funded" employers (most large and increasingly mid size employers including the government) and government programs (Medicaid MSO, Medicare Advantage (Part C)).  There is a reason why you hear about the losses and exits on the exchanges (where they sell "insurance") and the conflicting stories about the gravy train of the ACA (Medicaid expansion),   We could move to a single payer model and still keep the health insurance industry very happy.   If one believes the government is not capable of managing health care as well as private players then keeping the insurance companies around for these tasks would be the "best of both worlds".   It wouldn't really be true that adding the overhead of a profiting middle man with their additional administrative overhead (including marketing) isn't making things cheaper, but we can simply pay the more we are paying today to get there faster keeping the health insurance companies around for a while.  We can achieve the cost savings of cutting out the profit driven factors later.

:
Click to expand...
Aetna chief executive Mark Bertolini said Thursday.

Single-payer, I think we should have that debate as a nation. But let me remind everybody that Aetna was the first financial intermediary for Medicare. We cut the first check for Medicare in 1965 to Hartford Hospital for $517.57.

The government doesn’t administer anything. the first thing they’ve ever tried to administer in social programs was the ACA, and that didn’t go so well. So the industry has always been the back room for government. If the government wants to pay all the bills, and employers want to stop offering coverage, and we can be there in a public private partnership to do the work we do today with Medicare, and with Medicaid at every state level, we run the Medicaid programs for them, then let’s have that conversation.

But if we want to turn it all over to the government to run, is the government really the right place to run all this stuff? And that’s the debate that needs to be had. They could finance it, and if there is one financer, and you could call that single-payer. ...

We’re going to pay for it one way or another. What we have to do is we have to get the costs right. We have to get people healthy. It’s not about who is paying the bill. It’s about what we’re doing to get the costs down. The Democrats are now saying that with the new Republican bill, wait there is nothing in here about getting costs down. That’s the point. And so that’s the place we’re headed as a company. It’s not just about paying the bills.
Click to expand...

 
The Questions Democrats Have to Answer to Run on Single Payer

Klein goes on to suggest that Democrats have traditionally been divided on health care into two camps: incrementalists and transformationalists. In describing the former, he says this:

The crucial fact about this divide, however, is that many of the pragmatic incrementalists are philosophical transformationalists: They would prefer a Medicare-for-all system, but they haven’t thought it’s politically possible.
Click to expand...
While I have typically favored an incrementalist approach, I have to disagree that when it comes to single payer, the main obstacle is whether or not it is politically possible. Most progressive achievements started off as politically impossible, that’s nothing new. The difference between incrementalists and transformationalists is in recognizing the length of the struggle and the importance of articulating the steps it will take to get there.
Click to expand...
As posted in the past with other topics (mainly BIG) these achievements usually come out of nowhere. Few were thinking, yet alone advocating for SS a decade earlier.  Few were pushing Medicare or Medicaid or whatever until suddenly the time was right.  The time for single payer - one way or another is here.  The time for BIG is not far behind.  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The Questions Democrats Have to Answer to Run on Single Payer

As posted in the past with other topics (mainly BIG) these achievements usually come out of nowhere. Few were thinking, yet alone advocating for SS a decade earlier.  Few were pushing Medicare or Medicaid or whatever until suddenly the time was right.  The time for single payer - one way or another is here.  The time for BIG is not far behind.  
Click to expand...
:lmao:

Why don't you just move to a country that already has it?  Pick your favorite socialist utopia and go.  What's stopping you?  Excessively long wait times (if you don't die first) and ####ty care isn't going to happen here.

 
MaxThreshold said:
Why don't you just move to a country that already has it?  Pick your favorite socialist utopia and go.  What's stopping you?  Excessively long wait times (if you don't die first) and ####ty care isn't going to happen here.
Click to expand...
Because I want force the young adults from this country that recklessly allowed themselves to be born with a genetic disease to take some personal responsibility and be forced to wait on average an 10 extra years before they die.  Among other similarly selfish reasons.

 
MaxThreshold said:
:lmao:

Why don't you just move to a country that already has it?  Pick your favorite socialist utopia and go.  What's stopping you?  Excessively long wait times (if you don't die first) and ####ty care isn't going to happen here.
Click to expand...
Much like women voting. Or slavery. Or whatever else you conservatives don't want to update. Your views are outmoded.

 
MaxThreshold said:
:lmao:

Why don't you just move to a country that already has it?  Pick your favorite socialist utopia and go.  What's stopping you?  Excessively long wait times (if you don't die first) and ####ty care isn't going to happen here.
Click to expand...
Wait times?    OMG .... Wait times?  !!!!    Hysteria?   That's all you got?  Wait times? :lmao:

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Much like women voting. Or slavery. Or whatever else you conservatives don't want to update. Your views are outmoded.
Click to expand...
Oh, the "if you don't think like me you're a racist/misogynist/etc..." argument.  Didn't work for you last election and won't work now.  I understand the knee-jerk, though - you're brainwashed and can't help yourself.

Of course, the ironic thing is your'e asking people to submit to be slaves of government now.  I'll ask you the same question as I did BFS - why don't you just move to your favorite socialist utopia?  You'll be better off (according to you) and you can celebrate with your fellow citizens of how lucky you are to have government running your lives.

 
MaxThreshold said:
Why even worry about it?  Just move to your socialist country of your choice and you'll be freed of your worry.  Seriously - go.
Click to expand...
Hard as it may be to believe, many of us love our country and want to stay here even though we'd like to improve some things about it.  You should understand that idea, a major party candidate won with the slogan "Make America Great Again." 

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Because we update and change outmoded views over time. 
Click to expand...
Or because our friends and families are here.  Or because we love this country despite its health care system.

Seriously, "just move" is a moronic argument.  People need to stop taking it seriously, and probably should stop taking anyone who makes it seriously too.

 
MaxThreshold said:
:lmao:

Why don't you just move to a country that already has it?  Pick your favorite socialist utopia and go.  What's stopping you?  Excessively long wait times (if you don't die first) and ####ty care isn't going to happen here.
Click to expand...
Why do you continue to spread propaganda that is demonstrably false?

You are branding lies, which is disappointing on so many levels not the least of which is you often present well considered opinions. But this is nothing but pushing a false message and you should not be proud of that fact.

 
MaxThreshold said:
Oh, the "if you don't think like me you're a racist/misogynist/etc..." argument.  Didn't work for you last election and won't work now.  I understand the knee-jerk, though - you're brainwashed and can't help yourself.

Of course, the ironic thing is your'e asking people to submit to be slaves of government now.  I'll ask you the same question as I did BFS - why don't you just move to your favorite socialist utopia?  You'll be better off (according to you) and you can celebrate with your fellow citizens of how lucky you are to have government running your lives.
Click to expand...
And why don't you just move to your favorite theocratic hegemony?

Oh, wait...

 
MaxThreshold said:
Why even worry about it?  Just move to your socialist country of your choice and you'll be freed of your worry.  Seriously - go.
Click to expand...
For whatever it's worth, I do plan on doing this.  The decision has no basis in either the healthcare system of either country, or that country being more socialist than us. 

 
Obamacare was the Republican plan in the early 90s. So I guess R's are socialists too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
Then it's time to move on from your socialist health care nonsense.  It's a failed idea.
Click to expand...
How are you defining success and failure here? Because by most measures I think you can make a better case that our system has failed compared to more "socialist" systems. Starting with the fact that we actually spend more public dollars per capita than most countries do but only cover a fraction of our population. 

 
I think folks have lost faith in what America is capable of doing better than anyone else in the world. We have done a great job implementing so many things other countries have done and either failed at, or did poorly.

We're a great nation and can do most things better than other countries in the world...why are folks so quick to talk down how well we could do at single payer, if it came to that?  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rockaction
Politeness, Courtesy, and Personal Happiness
Replies
22
Views
686
El Floppo
El Floppo
Terminalxylem
Patient Satisfaction
2
Replies
77
Views
2K
Terminalxylem
Terminalxylem
odin33
Seeking medical and legal advice- Handling of daughter's outpatient surgery
Replies
15
Views
633
Terminalxylem
Terminalxylem

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top