Repeal & Replace petition 81,000 signatures

[RodISHI]

Grassfire has a grassroots petition for repeal & replace Obamacare now going out at midnight tonight. So far they have 81,000 signatures and are hoping for at least a 100,000 before midnight when they send it out. Here is the link to sign it if you are a US citizen.

PETITION: Declare Your Independence From ObamaCare And Call For A Real Repeal!

 

[DarkFury]

Thank you and did it!

 

[Mousterian]

I'm rather surprised that many Trump supporters can actually read! Must be a lot of fake voters.

 

[RodISHI]

I'm rather surprised that many Trump supporters can actually read! Must be a lot of fake voters.

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.

 

[The Derp]

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.

 

[DarkFury]

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.

Shit stain care did not allow to pick his doctor either. And in a lot of cases shit stain care did not allow him to even pick his insurance provider. So he had less freedom of choice with shit stain care.

 

[dblack]

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?

You don't have to do it that way.

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

It matters because whoever controls the reimbursement of your doctor controls your health care. That's why the prudent thing is to pay for as much of your own health care as you can manage and rely on insurance as little as possible.

 

[The Derp]

Shit stain care did not allow to pick his doctor either. And in a lot of cases shit stain care did not allow him to even pick his insurance provider. So he had less freedom of choice with shit stain care.

My point is that shouldn't you choose your doctor first, and not concern yourself with who reimburses them? Why does that matter to you?

 

[The Derp]

You don't have to do it that way.

But you do, that's the thing. What is the first thing a doctor's office asks you when you get there for the first time? Or even when you call to schedule an appointment? What insurance carrier you have. So you're not picking your doctor. Doctors aren't competing for your care (and thus, improving outcomes). You aren't the one reimbursing your doctor, the insurer is. So how is private health insurance germane to your health care if all they do is restrict your choices and administer reimbursement?

It matters because whoever controls the reimbursement of your doctor controls your health care.

Bullshit. It doesn't matter to a provider who reimburses them. It doesn't matter to you who reimburses them because it's a transaction that happens after you get your care. Administration is not control. So you're saying private, for-profit entities are in control of our health care right now, then? How is that any better than Medicare? Do you not believe private insurers would put their profits above your interests? How naive a belief is that!?

That's why the prudent thing is to pay for as much of your own health care as you can manage and rely on insurance as little as possible.

So what if you cannot afford to pay out of pocket, like most Americans? What happens if you have a chronic condition, of which you have no control because of genetics? So those people are S.O.L. in your mind?

 

[DarkFury]

Shit stain care did not allow to pick his doctor either. And in a lot of cases shit stain care did not allow him to even pick his insurance provider. So he had less freedom of choice with shit stain care.

My point is that shouldn't you choose your doctor first, and not concern yourself with who reimburses them? Why does that matter to you?

So pick your doctor then buy the insurance. Most people buy via their employer because it's cheaper but you are not forced to buy.

 

[RodISHI]

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.

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

 

[The Derp]

My point is that shouldn't you choose your doctor first, and not concern yourself with who reimburses them? Why does that matter to you?

So pick your doctor then buy the insurance. Most people buy via their employer because it's cheaper but you are not forced to buy.

But you didn't answer my question. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to go see whatever doctor you want and have just one entity do the administration of reimbursements? Why do there have to be private interests in that part of health care? It's not germane to health care delivery. We are merely talking administration, nothing more.

 

[RodISHI]

Shit stain care did not allow to pick his doctor either. And in a lot of cases shit stain care did not allow him to even pick his insurance provider. So he had less freedom of choice with shit stain care.

My point is that shouldn't you choose your doctor first, and not concern yourself with who reimburses them? Why does that matter to you?

So pick your doctor then buy the insurance. Most people buy via their employer because it's cheaper but you are not forced to buy.

Being "forced" to support their commercial interest is the real problem. Our Congress has allowed the "we the people" to be unethically taxed by corporate thugs and the Supreme court has went along with that crap to help line the pockets of a few.

 

[The Derp]

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.

 

[The Derp]

Being "forced" to support their commercial interest is the real problem. Our Congress has allowed the "we the people" to be unethically taxed by corporate thugs and the Supreme court has went along with that crap to help line the pockets of a few.

Yes, health insurance is basically a tax...even before the ACA. If factored in as a tax, the amount people spend on private health insurance would be greater than the amount people would spend if we had single-payer.

 

[dblack]

You don't have to do it that way.

But you do, that's the thing.

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

It matters because whoever controls the reimbursement of your doctor controls your health care.

Bullshit. It doesn't matter to a provider who reimburses them. It doesn't matter to you who reimburses them because it's a transaction that happens after you get your care. Administration is not control. So you're saying private, for-profit entities are in control of our health care right now, then? How is that any better than Medicare? Do you not believe private insurers would put their profits above your interests? How naive a belief is that!?

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. 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.

That's why the prudent thing is to pay for as much of your own health care as you can manage and rely on insurance as little as possible.

So what if you cannot afford to pay out of pocket, like most Americans? What happens if you have a chronic condition, of which you have no control because of genetics? So those people are S.O.L. in your mind?

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.

But that's not what we're doing. Instead, we're fucking around with delusional schemes preoccupied with getting someone else to pay the bills. That will only fuel more inflation, making the problem worse.

 

[The Derp]

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.

 

[dblack]

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[RodISHI]

Being "forced" to support their commercial interest is the real problem. Our Congress has allowed the "we the people" to be unethically taxed by corporate thugs and the Supreme court has went along with that crap to help line the pockets of a few.

Yes, health insurance is basically a tax...even before the ACA. If factored in as a tax, the amount people spend on private health insurance would be greater than the amount people would spend if we had single-payer.

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.

 

[The Derp]

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 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. And what happens in the event you develop a condition that requires chronic treatment? Paying out of pocket isn't going to help you. That's the point of insurance; you don't know what your health care needs are going to be day-to-day, so you mitigate that risk by pooling your premiums together with thousands, millions, of other people. Better to hedge that risk than not, right?

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. So they are not accountable to you, to your neighbor, to anyone. And yes, you have only one vote. But if millions of people share the same beliefs you do, and you all vote the same way, then you are holding people accountable. You can't do that in a private, for-profit insurance system, can you? You can't vote out the executive who makes the decision to not cover procedure X. But you can vote the legislator out who does.

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.