Repeal & Replace petition 81,000 signatures

[RodISHI]

No, you don't. Just because most people do it that way doesn't mean it's the only way.

OK, but for those hundreds of millions of people with chronic conditions that require consistent care, that isn't an option.

It matters a great deal, because whoever is paying the bill, decides which services they will pay for and how much they will pay for them.

Right, so right now you are admitting that a private company, whose only obligation is to that of the shareholders, and who must maintain profit margins at your expense, is in "control" of your health care. So how is that beneficial to you? Do you think your health care needs align with the profit needs of the insurance company? I certainly hope you don't think that, because that would be terribly naive. Why do you think insurance companies practices rescission in the days before Obamacare? They did that because they had profit margins they had to maintain that would be reduced or eliminated if they had to reimburse for your care. So how is that analogous to Medicare, that doesn't have a profit motive? How would Medicare for all be any less accountable to you as a patient than Aetna? I think you'll find as you answer that question that it makes less and less sense to have private insurance instead of single-payer.

This happens before services are rendered and determines what health care you will get. If an insurance company is paying your bills, this is stipulated in the policy, if the you're paying the bill, it's your call. If government is paying, then your health care depends on who is in office: Trump, for example.

Yes, but you can vote Trump out. You can't vote out the Board of an insurance company, can you? You can't vote out an insurance company executive, can you? How many doctors work for any given insurance company? ZERO (The exception being Kaiser). So insurance companies are "controlling" your health care without even employing a single doctor. So how can they possibly determine what they should and shouldn't pay for to address your medical needs? Who are they to make that judgement? Their judgement is made absent any medical input from, say, a doctor. They weigh what to pay for and what to not pay for based on their bottom line, not what's best for your health. Isn't that backwards???????

The fact that most Americans can't afford basic health care is the problem. That's what we need to address. Something is stupidly wrong with a market that can't provide services at a price people can afford.

And why do you think that is? Because of for-profit insurance. That's the only reason why.

Chronic conditions are also an issue that should be dealt with on a different level. One of the posters on here says she has been dealing with cancer for several years and without ACA they wouldn't be able to get that treatment but wait, they are paying for their children's college and own a million plus dollar home. Now should a person who doesn't have a million + home, has made less most of their life and is not paying to send their children to college subsidize her treatments or should she and her hubby tell their children 'you will have to pay for your own college, we will have to spend our savings on my health care and if we have to we may have to sell this house and lower our standards while I receive medical treatment?

 

[RodISHI]

BTW derp there are many ways to treat and even cure many chronic illnesses but the whole system is way too corrupt and they would rather sell medical and pills verses cure anything.

 

[The Derp]

Someone stated on one of these ACA threads health insurance was a luxury and I have to agree that it was a luxury prior to Congress making it a forced tax.

Health care is a necessity. How health care should be paid isn't something that should have a profit-motive tied to it because then profits take precedence over care in a for-profit company.

 

[RodISHI]

Wrong unless it was a job related injury I always chose my own doctor and if I would accept their advice on medical care.

Sigh...again...you are not speaking to the point I am making. The point I am making is that you must first choose an insurer before you even set foot in a doctor's office, unless you're Daddy Warbucks and have thousands of dollars in cash on hand to spend...which wouldn't be true for the middle class since they're all in debt thanks to Bush the Dumber. Now, how is it germane to your health care as to whom reimburses your provider from the premium pool for your care? It's not. All insurance does is limit your choices as a patient. Employer-provided care has the same issue; again, you're not choosing your doctor. You're choosing the entity that reimburses your doctor for care they've already performed. So it's not even like your health care is contingent on the insurer reimbursing them. That comes after you've already received treatment and requires administration.

The moment I was hurt on the job and an insurance company was in charge and obligated to make sure I was treated properly the bastards would have let me die. Fact is I believe that was their initial intent when I was covered in chemicals as the primary doctor that they stuck me with tried to drug me with dangerous drugs instead of trying to mitigate the damage of the caustic chemicals. F' the insurance mongrels and their lackies that have sold out to them that are willing to abuse other human beings for a few bucks.

Yeah...you won't hear an argument from me that insurance companies suck. Why did they do all of that? To maintain profit margins. So they quite literally put their interests ahead of your medical needs. That's what happens when you privatize the administration of reimbursements, and why we should have Medicare-for-all.

They were covering the company they insured ass and the chemical companies ass who they probably insured too. Those particular chemicals cause asthma in any amount and are widely distributed and being widely used. I just happened to be covered in them in the full strength solution. If there were any honest f'n lawyers they would have sued the bastards for what they did but instead it has taken me years to recover with no financial or true medical help. The state here did their fair share of assisting in all that shit as they had their own agenda to try to keep covered up from crooks in the judicial and state ran systems.

 

[RodISHI]

Someone stated on one of these ACA threads health insurance was a luxury and I have to agree that it was a luxury prior to Congress making it a forced tax.

Health care is a necessity. How health care should be paid isn't something that should have a profit-motive tied to it because then profits take precedence over care in a for-profit company.

It has gone beyond and above what is necessary and the whole system is abusive at this point. Sorry it needs to be deconstructed.

 

[The Derp]

Chronic conditions are also an issue that should be dealt with on a different level.

Why? You want to punish people for their genetics, which are out of their control? You want to segregate out people you think are riskier because why? And what happens if you find yourself as one of those "riskier" people? Then you're screwed. High-risk pools do not work, have not worked, and will never work. We've tried them already.

One of the posters on here says she has been dealing with cancer for several years and without ACA they wouldn't be able to get that treatment but wait, they are paying for their children's college and own a million plus dollar home. Now should a person who doesn't have a million + home, has made less most of their life and is not paying to send their children to college subsidize her treatments or should she and her hubby tell their children 'you will have to pay for your own college, we will have to spend our savings on my health care and if we have to we may have to sell this house and lower our standards while I receive medical treatment?

Well, I think public colleges should be entirely free and that everyone should be on single-payer, and I think the wealthy and corporations should pay for it. That would address both those needs.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Some of us remain complete and are not as brain damage as others. We choose to retain liberty and freedom of choice. We are not going to give it away to a few freely.

You've never had freedom of choice when it comes to health care. Your choice is but an illusion. You don't choose your doctor. You choose your insurance company first, then you choose your doctor from those in that insurer's network. So your choice of doctor is limited by the insurance company. How is that free market?

Shouldn't it be reversed? Why does it matter who reimburses your provider? It's not even a transaction of which you are a part.

Actually, I've always chosen my doctor first. My insurance company has been who ever may employer provides and I've never had a problem with my doctors not being part of their network.

To your point, however, you're right. We've never had real choices. Perhaps it's time to get government and insurance companies mostly out of the equation and actually establish a free market.

 

[RodISHI]

Chronic conditions are also an issue that should be dealt with on a different level.

Why? You want to punish people for their genetics, which are out of their control? You want to segregate out people you think are riskier because why? And what happens if you find yourself as one of those "riskier" people? Then you're screwed. High-risk pools do not work, have not worked, and will never work. We've tried them already.

One of the posters on here says she has been dealing with cancer for several years and without ACA they wouldn't be able to get that treatment but wait, they are paying for their children's college and own a million plus dollar home. Now should a person who doesn't have a million + home, has made less most of their life and is not paying to send their children to college subsidize her treatments or should she and her hubby tell their children 'you will have to pay for your own college, we will have to spend our savings on my health care and if we have to we may have to sell this house and lower our standards while I receive medical treatment?

Well, I think public colleges should be entirely free and that everyone should be on single-payer, and I think the wealthy and corporations should pay for it. That would address both those needs.

I disagree with you that all these health issues people having are simply genetics. I do not believe that I should be paying the price for a relative that lived his whole life a druggy to now be legally drugged with Morphine for he can cope every day with health issues that he brought upon himself. And again I should not nor should anyone else be responsible for the lawyer's wife and her children's college or her healthcare needs. I object to corporations that have been allowed to manipulate the legal system with unlawful conduct and enrich the banksters more for people like you can say 'they should pay for everyone to have whatever they want in healthcare and college for free'. That is not liberty nor is it freedom.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well, I think public colleges should be entirely free and that everyone should be on single-payer, and I think the wealthy and corporations should pay for it. That would address both those needs.

What entitles you to a "free" education and "free" doctor visits on somebody else's dime? How about we tax 70% of your income and give it to the homeless so they can have a house to live in for "free." You cool with that, Stalin?

 

[The Derp]

BTW derp there are many ways to treat and even cure many chronic illnesses but the whole system is way too corrupt and they would rather sell medical and pills verses cure anything.

I agree! Drug companies, in particular, have no incentive to cure diseases, only treat symptoms. After all, what's more profitable; treating someone once or treating them for the rest of their lives?

 

[RodISHI]

BTW derp there are many ways to treat and even cure many chronic illnesses but the whole system is way too corrupt and they would rather sell medical and pills verses cure anything.

I agree! Drug companies, in particular, have no incentive to cure diseases, only treat symptoms. After all, what's more profitable; treating someone once or treating them for the rest of their lives?

Not only the drug companies but they are also chemical companies that are into both health and agriculture chems. Add on top of that the lack clean water, the extra bacteria, fungi, viruses being added in and minerals-sustance being stripped from the food and there is a huge health crisis out there that many people are totally oblivious to other than they don't feel good.

 

[The Derp]

I disagree with you that all these health issues people having are simply genetics.

Science has determined that a lot of medical conditions are genetic. Most mental health issues are genetic. Some people are pre-disposed to certain afflictions because of genetics. I think there are a lot of health issues that can be solved with a change in diet; for instance, cutting out sugar which is the greatest cause of many treatable and preventative health problems.

I do not believe that I should be paying the price for a relative that lived his whole life a druggy to now be legally drugged with Morphine for he can cope every day with health issues that he brought upon himself.

OK, but that's not the issue here. That's an addiction issue which gets back to the mental health thing I mentioned earlier. Do you think everyone who has chronic medical conditions is a drug addict? Surely, that's not the case. And that's kinda the thing with insurance; you don't know what conditions may arise as you maintain your enrollment.

And again I should not nor should anyone else be responsible for the lawyer's wife and her children's college or her healthcare needs.

But you are already doing that when you pay into a premium pool. What you're paying for isn't a plan just for you, it's you and the thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions of other people who are also enrolled in your plan. So I don't quite understand your objection; you're already paying for other people when you pay an insurance premium. That's how insurance works. The larger the pool, the lower the risk, and the lower the premium.

I object to corporations that have been allowed to manipulate the legal system with unlawful conduct and enrich the banksters more for people like you can say 'they should pay for everyone to have whatever they want in healthcare and college for free'. That is not liberty nor is it freedom.

Huh? How is it not liberty or freedom to tax rich people and corporations to pay for health care and education so you don't have to, and instead you can spend money buying things those corporations make in the consumer market? What's the problem with that?

 

[RodISHI]

I disagree with you that all these health issues people having are simply genetics.

Science has determined that a lot of medical conditions are genetic. Most mental health issues are genetic. Some people are pre-disposed to certain afflictions because of genetics. I think there are a lot of health issues that can be solved with a change in diet; for instance, cutting out sugar which is the greatest cause of many treatable and preventative health problems.

I do not believe that I should be paying the price for a relative that lived his whole life a druggy to now be legally drugged with Morphine for he can cope every day with health issues that he brought upon himself.

OK, but that's not the issue here. That's an addiction issue which gets back to the mental health thing I mentioned earlier. Do you think everyone who has chronic medical conditions is a drug addict? Surely, that's not the case. And that's kinda the thing with insurance; you don't know what conditions may arise as you maintain your enrollment.

And again I should not nor should anyone else be responsible for the lawyer's wife and her children's college or her healthcare needs.

But you are already doing that when you pay into a premium pool. What you're paying for isn't a plan just for you, it's you and the thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions of other people who are also enrolled in your plan. So I don't quite understand your objection; you're already paying for other people when you pay an insurance premium. That's how insurance works. The larger the pool, the lower the risk, and the lower the premium.

I object to corporations that have been allowed to manipulate the legal system with unlawful conduct and enrich the banksters more for people like you can say 'they should pay for everyone to have whatever they want in healthcare and college for free'. That is not liberty nor is it freedom.

Huh? How is it not liberty or freedom to tax rich people and corporations to pay for health care and education so you don't have to, and instead you can spend money buying things those corporations make in the consumer market? What's the problem with that?

Many things attributed to genetics is merely environment and things like bacteria and viruses that have been passed into each generation. Are there some things that are genetic sure but not all environment and habits are the biggest factors but now on top of all that you have added issues like the assholes trying to alter peoples DNA through vaccines.

I don't have medical insurance and if I were in the position to be able to at this point I'd still tell those racketeers to GFY.

Many corporations at the moment are too corrupt to even consider letting them survive much less depend on them for a tax base to support what you propose.

 

[The Derp]

What entitles you to a "free" education and "free" doctor visits on somebody else's dime? How about we tax 70% of your income and give it to the homeless so they can have a house to live in for "free." You cool with that, Stalin?

No one is being taxed at 70%. Calm down.

 

[The Derp]

Not only the drug companies but they are also chemical companies that are into both health and agriculture chems. Add on top of that the lack clean water, the extra bacteria, fungi, viruses being added in and minerals-sustance being stripped from the food and there is a huge health crisis out there that many people are totally oblivious to other than they don't feel good.

My biggest fear isn't a terrorist attack, a foreign invasion, or nuclear strike. My biggest fear is a pandemic. This country is not prepared for such an event. Shows like The Walking Dead, Last Man on Earth, Containment, etc. may be entertainment, but they've definitely scared me into fearing an easily communicable disease or virus that spreads like wildfire. We're screwed if that happens.

 

[MarkClaude]

Repeal with Replace makes much more sense for the GOP than just Repeal. It will keep more votes with the former than the latter.

 

[The Derp]

Many things attributed to genetics is merely environment and things like bacteria and viruses that have been passed into each generation. Are there some things that are genetic sure but not all environment and habits are the biggest factors but now on top of all that you have added issues like the assholes trying to alter peoples DNA through vaccines.

Ummm...well...I don't know that about the vaccines. That sounds a little far-fetched. Vaccines are 'bigly' important, as they eradicate diseases. People who don't vaccinate their children are knowingly sending "dirty bombs" to schools. Again, that feeds into my fear of pandemics, but the measles outbreaks (twenty years ago, were unheard of in North America) and other outbreaks are inexcusable and we as a society should not fear vaccines, we should embrace them.

Now antibiotics, on the other hand, are something we should be using less. Viruses and bacteria are evolving to the point where antibiotics are becoming less useful.

I don't have medical insurance and if I were in the position to be able to at this point I'd still tell those racketeers to GFY.

Well, in my opinion, that's a risky strategy. You never know what your health needs are going to be day-to-day. You could be perfectly healthy one day and then -BAM!- unhealthy the next. That's why insurance is a good thing, and why single payer would be even better.

Many corporations at the moment are too corrupt to even consider letting them survive much less depend on them for a tax base to support what you propose.

So what do we do about it, then?

 

[The Derp]

Repeal with Replace makes much more sense for the GOP than just Repeal. It will keep more votes with the former than the latter.

Problem is, they've been screaming repeal and replace for 7 years, yet don't have a replacement. What have they been doing for seven years???

 

[RodISHI]

Not only the drug companies but they are also chemical companies that are into both health and agriculture chems. Add on top of that the lack clean water, the extra bacteria, fungi, viruses being added in and minerals-sustance being stripped from the food and there is a huge health crisis out there that many people are totally oblivious to other than they don't feel good.

My biggest fear isn't a terrorist attack, a foreign invasion, or nuclear strike. My biggest fear is a pandemic. This country is not prepared for such an event. Shows like The Walking Dead, Last Man on Earth, Containment, etc. may be entertainment, but they've definitely scared me into fearing an easily communicable disease or virus that spreads like wildfire. We're screwed if that happens.

For years I have searched for answers to certain health issues I have had and ones Rod has had since I have known him (almost forty years). I started studying parasite here locally years ago because of a big two hundred pound beauty of a baby dog I had. he had health problems from the time he was a year old and so did all of his litter mates. One pup from that litter was given to our small town doc so he and I shared notes on things that helped the dogs. It has been almost three years now since my son came down to let me know he had been diagnosed with brain cancer and cancer in two other areas. It had been twenty years ago docs told son he had Lupus which I totally disagreed with but hey I'm not an expert so that didn't go far with him. Anyhow I started looking into and reading everything I could find on natural ways to cure cancer as with Lupus brain cancer treatment via chemo is a certain death sentence. In the last three years I discovered many things about the different diseases, causes and so on and so forth. Things like why does Rod's fingernails turn down out that ends had always puzzled me and the docs. The answer came a few days ago when I started searching Crohn's disease which also provided an answer to his mom's diabetes, thyroid issues in his family members, sisters, aunts and his cousins all with chronic health issues that are similar. One simple bacteria or parasite can cause these all of these issues that they have had and it can come from chlorinated water, pasteurized milk or even milk products. Billions of dollars involved in treating not curing the disease from this one stupid bacteria or microscopic parasites and millions of people with misery why would greedy people let that information be widely spread if they can prevent it through licensing and regulation of people giving out information on natural cures and treatments? Now if an uneducated limited person such as I can understand these things why can't our so called experts do the same?

 

[dblack]

Well, I think you're exaggerating here, but you're right - health insurance isn't a viable solution for the poor or chronically ill.

For-profit insurance isn't the solution. A single-payer is. The larger the premium pool, the lower the risk. So doesn't it make sense to have everyone in one insurance pool?

Only if you want to see government in charge of everyone's health care. We don't need to socialize health care to help the poor.

Only if that's the choice you make. If you pay for your health care yourself, you make the call.

But you can't do that if you have a chronic condition.

Right. If you want to help the poor, insurance is a bad choice. We went over that.

Of course I can. And it only takes one vote, mine. One vote out of millions gives me very little control over elections, but I can fire my insurance company any time I like.

Doesn't matter what insurance company you have, the universal reality you are going to run into is that the decisions made by any insurance company takes their bottom-line interests into account before your needs.

Maybe so, but if the market remains free, and the statists don't succeed in taking it over with government, then I can find some other way to pay for my health care.

You can't vote out the executive who makes the decision to not cover procedure X.

I don't have to 'vote him out' - I can just tell him to fly a kite. I can do that with government. I'm bound by what most voters think I should do. And, frankly, I don't want the majority in charge of my health care.

But you can vote the legislator out who does.

Only if I can persuade the ignorant masses that it should happen. Again, I simply don't have that much confidence in democracy. Especially when it comes to something as personal and important as health care.

No, there's also a lot of regulation and tax policy propping them up. We're even at a place where government is forcing us to buy their shit. Government is clearly part of the problem.

Look, you guys need to decide what is more important to you; corporate profits or universal coverage. Because you can't have both.

I don't really care about corporate profits one way or another. But I definitely don't want 'universal coverage'. Centralizing that much control under national government is a horrible idea, especially in the US.