Donald Trump and US politics

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

So, cut insurance companies out of it, everyone pays a % of income, everyone gets better care as there is no insurance companies profiting. But, but, but choice. Yeah, hang on to that choice thing your corrupt politicians keep telling you so that they continue receiving donations from the profits those companies are making from you while charging high premiums and deductibles.

It's not like it works in 30 countries which are poorer than the US but have better healthcare. Oh, wait.

I'll admit, I'm not seeing viable solutions from either political party in the USA. This isn't just directed at one side. But forcing young people to pay extra for something they don't need isn't a legitimate solution either. I do think people with pre-existing conditions should have coverage options that don't financially break them.

What concerns me when the government has full control over the healthcare system is they get to decide who needs/gets which surgeries, and when. The government can't even run the fucking VA healthcare system, does anyone in their right mind think they're going to do any better if it's on a larger scale?

Something they might be able to try: The government could setup its own insurance provider to directly compete with the market. If prices go up too high, they make adjustments to compensate. If it fails, scrap it. They could also cover people with pre-existing conditions with some subsidies. There would be some influence on the market, without having full control over it. And the ones who think this is the best type of option will have the opportunity to prove it.

"

SarahAustin wrote:

"

Wraeclastian wrote:

Democrats are the true evil in this country.

Damn can you keep it down already? Youre really such a hater.

Shouldn't you be out protesting somewhere with your pink cat hat?

"

Wraeclastian wrote:

Shouldn't you be out protesting somewhere with your pink cat hat?

LOL! REKT

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

So, cut insurance companies out of it, everyone pays a % of income, everyone gets better care as there is no insurance companies profiting. But, but, but choice. Yeah, hang on to that choice thing your corrupt politicians keep telling you so that they continue receiving donations from the profits those companies are making from you while charging high premiums and deductibles.

It's not like it works in 30 countries which are poorer than the US but have better healthcare. Oh, wait.

I'll admit, I'm not seeing viable solutions from either political party in the USA. This isn't just directed at one side. But forcing young people to pay extra for something they don't need isn't a legitimate solution either. I do think people with pre-existing conditions should have coverage options that don't financially break them.

What concerns me when the government has full control over the healthcare is they get to decide who needs/gets which surgeries, and when. The government can't even run the fucking VA healthcare system, does anyone in their right mind think they're going to do any better if it's on a larger scale?

I edited my post by the way, as the way I worded it wasn't accurate.

"But forcing young people to pay extra for something they don't need isn't a legitimate solution either."

This point, the context you were using it in, if I'm correct, was: Young healthy people are paying x amount per year while older and more vulnerable people are also paying x amount per year (assuming same income).

Thus the people who are less likely to need surgery/treatment are paying the same as people who are more likely to require surgery/treatment. This you see as unfair?

OK, these young people are also getting older, it's a part of life we have not been able to overcome. It happens, we age. Two ways to point out why this works.

When Joe the 27 year old who is not much risk reaches 54 and is a higher risk, he has been paying into healthcare all those years. This points out that Joe was paying while at low risk for when he is at high risk.

Joe is 27 and Bill is 54. Joe is supporting Bill.

27 years later, Sue is 27 but Joe is now 54. Joe, who supported Bill, is getting that same support from Sue.

https://thenib.com/exposed-the-secret-obama-plot-to-wiretap-trump

Who would have thought! The Don was right!!

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Thus the people who are less likely to need surgery/treatment are paying the same as people who are more likely to require surgery/treatment. This you see as unfair?

There are income gaps between younger and older retired folks.

People who are younger, such as the example I used of the college kid working part time at Jimmy Johns having to pay out of pocket for health insurance they don't need isn't exactly fair. FYI, they don't pay the same for insurance as someone who's older with pre-existing conditions. But it's still higher than what they'd have to pay otherwise. Referencing Obamacare.

If someone wants to provide a reasonable proposal that involves the government getting involved in some way in the healthcare system, go for it. But Obamacare isn't it. Obamacare-Lite proposed by Paul Ryan is equally garbage.

There are some smaller countries in the world who came up with government healthcare systems that work. But you'd need to amplify that on a much larger scale in the USA. The larger the entity, the more issues will arise from it.

For example, I think tribal communes on a small scale can work. Even work extremely well. But if you try to apply "Tribal commune" to the entirety of the USA, it's just not gonna work. Disagreements and in fighting, and people splitting hairs over disagreements could easily turn to violence, quickly. And then the exposure to corruption also becomes exponentially larger. For similar reasons, healthcare isn't as simple as "just because it works that way over there, it should work over here that way too".

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Thus the people who are less likely to need surgery/treatment are paying the same as people who are more likely to require surgery/treatment. This you see as unfair?

There are income gaps between younger and older retired folks.

People who are younger, such as the example I used of the college kid working part time at Jimmy Johns having to pay out of pocket for health insurance they don't need isn't exactly fair. FYI, they don't pay the same for insurance as someone who's older with pre-existing conditions. But it's still higher than what they'd have to pay otherwise.

If someone wants to provide a reasonable proposal that involves the government getting involved in some way in the healthcare system, go for it. But Obamacare isn't it. Obamacare-Lite proposed by Paul Ryan is equally garbage.

Sure, neither ACA or the replacement will work. That's why I wrote this..

"

30 poorer countries than US have better healthcare.

They did before ACA.

They did during ACA.

They will after ACA.

Obama was all for single payer at first. There was no way he was going to be allowed by republicans (and even a lot of dems) to do it. If I'm not mistaken the ACA was largely a republican created format that he tried to use to improve the health care system, which wasn't single payer but took steps towards it. Which got huge pushback from republicans, because a democrat was doing it mostly.

ACA didn't work, it couldn't work. What Obama wanted would work but wouldn't be allowed. He was trying to get there, eventually. You can look at ACA as being worse than before ACA, if you are selective about what you cite. You can look at ACA as being better than before ACA if you are selective.

If you consistently have 2 parties pulling in opposite directions, based on not only different ideals but with partisanship also being a factor in obstructing even if it is your party's ideal, just because the other party is doing it: U.S. healthcare will get nowhere, because it will take longer than any party is in full power to do. Healthcare won't work while insurance companies are part of it.

I'm afraid you are forever stuck with the worst healthcare in the modern world as long as you believe what corrupt politicians tell you about choice while taking donations from the very cancer that makes it not work. Well off people will have good healthcare, yes. They will still be paying many times more for it than everyone in other countries. While the 1% continue to get richer.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

There are some smaller countries in the world who came up with government healthcare systems that work. But you'd need to amplify that on a much larger scale in the USA. The larger the entity, the more issues will arise from it.

For example, I think tribal communes on a small scale can work. Even work extremely well. But if you try to apply "Tribal commune" to the entirety of the USA, it's just not gonna work. Disagreements and in fighting, and people splitting hairs over disagreements could easily turn to violence, quickly. And then the exposure to corruption also becomes exponentially larger. For similar reasons, healthcare isn't as simple as "just because it works that way over there, it should work over here that way too".

It works in 30 poorer, smaller countries, it can work in 50 states. Yes state level would probably be best.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

I don't like this particular solution, but it's just one of the proposals on the table at the moment. I think Paul Ryan's plan is Obamacare-lite.

Yeah. It is. Because this is the dirty little secret behind Obamacare: Obamacare is the republican health care plan. It always was the republican health care plan. You cannot really provide for universal health care via any manner which has more to do with the free market; at least, I have yet to see one.

"

The poorest will still be covered under medicaid, unless they just entirely scrap medicaid and offer no alternative program.

The obamacare medicaid expansion amounted for 10 million people getting health care that didn't have it beforehand. That's going away now, so those people will have to buy health insurance. Assuming, of course, that they can buy health insurance - a big if.

"

People who paid into Social Security and are currently drawing it would still get their checks. They're not wrong to seek an overhaul of the current system, which currently has too many beneficiaries, and fewer people paying into it than when the system was setup. Should attempts be made to fix this imminent train wreck before it happens, or should we just let it fail so we can blame the Republicans for it at a later date?

By all means, let's reform social security. I just don't think the shape of those reforms should be tying it to the stock market, or handing it over to private entities.

"

I dunno why people think it's the government's responsibility to even dictate such measures. I'm glad it's getting repealed.

Just to be clear, the page-one, line-one item on the republican health care plan involves a tax cut to corporations who pay their executives more than $500,000 per year. This is apparently a good thing in republican circles. The government has a responsibility to dictate the tax code. Perhaps a more meaningful simplification would just be to remove the ability to deduct executive pay from a company's taxes altogether. Would that be equally acceptable?

I talked about this earlier in the thread. If the US wants a universal health care system similar to Canada, you have to regulate everything on the cost side of things.

Costs are out of control in Canada and the service is abysmal (we have sick people spending nights in hospital hallways because there's no room, partially because too many rooms are filled with seniors waiting 2+ years to get into a proper elderly care facility; wait times at a children's emergency hospital can be 4+ hours for critical conditions where the assigned time frame to see a doctor according to triage guidelines is supposed to be within 15 minutes).

That it's free health care doesn't matter in many cases because the wait list for treatment is so long that you will die of cancer or spend a year crippled if you don't go to the US (i.e. over 30% of patients aren't being treated within benchmark times, and the benchmark times for hip or knee replacement for someone who is immobile is 26 weeks (same 26+ week benchmark for other things too, which they aren't even achieving). There's no rioting because when treatment is life or death we pay for people to go to the US. However, if the US copies Canada you'll end up just like us and the option to go there for fast treatment will disappear.

The scathing reports about our health care industry are endless. I'm not sure if the US people see them but here's one from a very liberal mainstream news company: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/01/28/er-rooms-failing-to-meet-wait-time-goals-by-a-long-shot.html

Cost problems to solve (must address to implement functional and sustainable universal health care):

- cartel style control over labor supply (accepting under 5% of applicants to medical school, graduating even less, barriers to certification of foreign trained medical professionals).

- revolving door and regulatory capture

- incompetent/corrupt government bargaining vs. massive public sector unions (inflated wages, inflated benefits, poor service, strikes, etc.)

- medical equipment and pharmaceuticals cost (likely requires reforming patent laws, or go full socialism and hard cap % profit, among other things)

- liability / malpractice legal insanity, insurance costs

- medical professional compensation, administrative and support staff compensation, executive compensation (when you have such an abundance of people desiring to pursue a career in medicine, it does not make sense to pay them an average annual gross of $368,000 and cover insurance cost + various subsidies + equipment, and in many cases you're attracting the wrong kind of people to that career path).

Mixing capitalism with public health care gives you a tax wasting abomination. You gotta go full iron fist socialism, or almost full fist.

Some elements of capitalism should remain like being able to choose your family doctor or go to the clinic/hospital of your choice (at least for initial exams). The Ontario premier recently considered changing that by restricting people to doctors/hospitals based on proximity to your permanent residence address (like they do with what school your kids can attend in the k-12 education system), which is basically extreme discrimination against the poor (essentially a two-tier system, with affluent neighborhoods having better service). Thankfully that plan for health care was shot down, at least for now. The real estate industry will keep lobbying hard to change this though, because it drives up demand/housing prices near the places they've invested in.