Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The GOPs problem on health reform is theyve spent years hiding their real position

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The GOPs problem on health reform is theyve spent years hiding their real position

    The fake, but popular, position goes something like this: Conservatives think everyone deserves affordable health insurance, but they disagree with Democrats about how to get everyone covered at the best price. This was the language that surrounded Paul Ryan and Donald Trumps Obamacare alternative an alternative that crashed and burned when it came clear that it would lead to more people with worse (or no) health insurance and higher medical bills.

    Conservatives real, but unpopular, position on health care is quite different, and it explains their behavior much better. Their real position is that universal coverage is a philosophically unsound goal, and that blocking Democrats from creating a universal health care system is of overriding importance. To many conservatives, it is not the governments role to make sure everyone who wants health insurance can get it, and it would be a massive step toward socialism if that changed.

  • #2
    Chuck Grassley, whom I hate, is an ideologue Republican that proudly denied Merrick Garland any hearing on the Senate Judicial committee. Earlier this year he mouth farted some awful brain droppings about what a replacement for a repealed ACA would look like, with really awesome savings accounts and high risk pools. It was hot garbage that failed badly in the House.

    Today he was quoted as saying Republicans had to do something, get something passed to assure insurance companies they could participate in the exchanges.

    Im not sure at this point if he understands that the exchanges are a part of the ACA. Maybe he's senile like Trump. Maybe he's been listening to his own rhetoric about Obamacare so long he doesn't know he promised to repeal the ACA. But no matter what, the Republicans are apparently twisting themselves into a position of defending the ACA. Maybe all they really want to do is make sure poors and minorities are screwed?

    Comment


    • #3
      They're pulling out of the exchanges. Maybe that's why he says he wants them back in.

      Just admit it. You don't want "insurance". You want somebody else to pay for your bad choices, or your misfortune. If Fat Albert has to pay for his diabeetus meds at the expense of his Raiders season tickets, maybe, must maybe, he'll stop drinking soda and start drinking water once in a while. This is a true time bomb, and will bring the health care system to its knees.



      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by charliesheen View Post
        If Fat Albert has to pay for his diabeetus meds at the expense of his Raiders season tickets, maybe, must maybe, he'll stop drinking soda and start drinking water once in a while.
        Goddamn, you are an idiot. The Revolution will not be motorized.


        Comment


        • #5
          The most obese states are red states.
          Mississippi: 35.2%
          West Virginia: 34.3%
          Louisiana: 33.2%
          Arkansas: 33.0%

          And the least obese states:
          Hawaii: 19.0%
          Colorado: 20.3%
          Montana: 23.5%
          California: 23.9%
          Massachusetts: 24.0%

          Trump voters are fat and costing us more.

          But whats really funny now is that Kansas and North Carolina are going in on obamacare and getting the medicaid expansion.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, we can go with Charlies fat people making bad choices brain turd to explain what is bringing the US healthcare system to its knees....or we can go with...you know....reality to explain why Healthcare for even basic services is bankrupting people. Tough choice, I know.

            Here's why America's healthcare still ranks low among developed countries.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by charliesheen View Post
              They're pulling out of the exchanges. Maybe that's why he says he wants them back in.

              Just admit it. You don't want "insurance". You want somebody else to pay for your bad choices, or your misfortune. If Fat Albert has to pay for his diabeetus meds at the expense of his Raiders season tickets, maybe, must maybe, he'll stop drinking soda and start drinking water once in a while. This is a true time bomb, and will bring the health care system to its knees.


              Obamacare exchanges started in 2014. Supersized sodas have been at McDonalds since the 80s. You are too dumb for words.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by charliesheen View Post
                They're pulling out of the exchanges. Maybe that's why he says he wants them back in.

                Just admit it. You don't want "insurance". You want somebody else to pay for your bad choices, or your misfortune. If Fat Albert has to pay for his diabeetus meds at the expense of his Raiders season tickets, maybe, must maybe, he'll stop drinking soda and start drinking water once in a while. This is a true time bomb, and will bring the health care system to its knees.


                The issue isn't Fat Albert wanting somebody else to pay for his diabeetus meds, the issue is that the prices on the diabeetus meds in America are absurdly high, and that he's not allowed to legally get the very same diabeetus meds at a more reasonable price from another country. Why can't American Fat Albert buy his meds at the same price that Canadian Fat Albert gets his? Why do the Fat Alberts of America pay far more, per-capita, for health coverage than all those European Fat Alberts, yet the European Fat Alberts have universal access to health services, and never have to worry about going broke over it?

                I understand you conservative types have some sort of philosophical objection to the idea of the government running something like healthcare - the idea that healthcare should be anything other than a profit-driven enterprise is frightening to you, I understand that. But when you compare our system to those of other first-world countries, it's pretty obvious that we as consumers are getting a pretty poor return on our dollar, that our healthcare outcomes are far worse than they should be, and that we could provide much better coverage for a lot less money if we switched to a single payer system. It's not even a conservative vs. liberal thing. It's a common sense economics thing.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by charliesheen View Post
                  They're pulling out of the exchanges. Maybe that's why he says he wants them back in.

                  Just admit it. You don't want "insurance". You want somebody else to pay for your bad choices, or your misfortune. If Fat Albert has to pay for his diabeetus meds at the expense of his Raiders season tickets, maybe, must maybe, he'll stop drinking soda and start drinking water once in a while. This is a true time bomb, and will bring the health care system to its knees.


                  That's not the way people work, fat albert already has diabeetus by the time he is personally motivated to change his diet. Mitigating the risk for fat albert needed to be done when he was little fat albert, by evil nanny state programs aimed at helping fat kids change before they become fat adults. Lifestyle and nutrition are parts of a complete healthcare system, saying 'well you should have changed 20 years ago, now you're fucked' just can't have the same effect.

                  You really need to start with an understanding of the basic reality, which is that you are on the hook for fat albert when he rolls up to the ER with diabetes and its myriad related problems. The state will pay for his medical care one way or another, and if it starts late that just increases the bill and adds the costs of disability. The cheapest option is to head it off early. The next cheapest option is to manage his care consistently. The most expensive option is to treat a chronic condition only when it throws up an emergency. You're paying regardless, the question is just one of efficiency, it's actually more expensive to support fat albert the way y'all do, despite him living a shorter life.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Zach11k View Post

                    The issue isn't Fat Albert wanting somebody else to pay for his diabeetus meds, the issue is that the prices on the diabeetus meds in America are absurdly high, and that he's not allowed to legally get the very same diabeetus meds at a more reasonable price from another country. Why can't American Fat Albert buy his meds at the same price that Canadian Fat Albert gets his? Why do the Fat Alberts of America pay far more, per-capita, for health coverage than all those European Fat Alberts, yet the European Fat Alberts have universal access to health services, and never have to worry about going broke over it?

                    I understand you conservative types have some sort of philosophical objection to the idea of the government running something like healthcare - the idea that healthcare should be anything other than a profit-driven enterprise is frightening to you, I understand that. But when you compare our system to those of other first-world countries, it's pretty obvious that we as consumers are getting a pretty poor return on our dollar, that our healthcare outcomes are far worse than they should be, and that we could provide much better coverage for a lot less money if we switched to a single payer system. It's not even a conservative vs. liberal thing. It's a common sense economics thing.

                    Yup.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Zach11k View Post

                      The issue isn't Fat Albert wanting somebody else to pay for his diabeetus meds, the issue is that the prices on the diabeetus meds in America are absurdly high, and that he's not allowed to legally get the very same diabeetus meds at a more reasonable price from another country. Why can't American Fat Albert buy his meds at the same price that Canadian Fat Albert gets his? Why do the Fat Alberts of America pay far more, per-capita, for health coverage than all those European Fat Alberts, yet the European Fat Alberts have universal access to health services, and never have to worry about going broke over it?

                      I understand you conservative types have some sort of philosophical objection to the idea of the government running something like healthcare - the idea that healthcare should be anything other than a profit-driven enterprise is frightening to you, I understand that. But when you compare our system to those of other first-world countries, it's pretty obvious that we as consumers are getting a pretty poor return on our dollar, that our healthcare outcomes are far worse than they should be, and that we could provide much better coverage for a lot less money if we switched to a single payer system. It's not even a conservative vs. liberal thing. It's a common sense economics thing.

                      http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...o-pharma-lobby

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Like I said. We are not talking about "insurance". I had insurance for a few hundred bucks a month which would cover a catastrophe. I paid cash for maintenance, just like my car or my houses or anything else I cared about. The Messiah promised me that if I went along with this scheme, nothing would change for me, and I'd still end up saving money somehow. My deductible when this started was about 2 grand. It went to 8, and my premiums went up about 50%. But I did get maternity and sex-change coverage, for my trouble.

                        This is middle-class rape.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by charliesheen View Post
                          Like I said. We are not talking about "insurance". I had insurance for a few hundred bucks a month which would cover a catastrophe. I paid cash for maintenance, just like my car or my houses or anything else I cared about. The Messiah promised me that if I went along with this scheme, nothing would change for me, and I'd still end up saving money somehow. My deductible when this started was about 2 grand. It went to 8, and my premiums went up about 50%. But I did get maternity and sex-change coverage, for my trouble.

                          This is middle-class rape.
                          Its the fact that you are still blaming fat albert and the messiah for the rise in healthcare costs is what makes you so hopelessly dim. But hey, who knew healthcare was this complicated, eh?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by stymiegreen View Post

                            Its the fact that you are still blaming fat albert and the messiah for the rise in healthcare costs is what makes you so hopelessly dim. But hey, who knew healthcare was this complicated, eh?
                            There's plenty of blame to go around. There is no way insurance like mine would have dried up and blown away w/o Obamacare. It had to be made illegal.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Would your catastrophic cover of a few hundred a month have covered you for kidney failure, cancer, long term massively expensive things like that?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X