Repeal & Replace petition 81,000 signatures

[RodISHI]

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.

No letting so many vaccines as they have been pushing so widely unregulated into the system is total bullshit.

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.

If you want insurance then by all means buy it but don't try to force your ideals on everyone else.

So what do we do about it, then?

We start jailing these bastards and stripping their ill gotten booty from them instead of letting the system coverup for them.

 

[dblack]

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.

We have safety nets in place to help the poor. If those need to be beefed up until the market is rebalanced, the we should do it. The socialists are just using the poor as an excuse to nationalize health care, which has always been on their to-do list.

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.

Hookers and blow for all!

 

[dblack]

If you want insurance then by all means buy it but don't try to force your ideals on everyone else.

Hold on now, forcing your ideals on everyone else is the whole point of government!

 

[The Derp]

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.

Administrating reimbursement is not placing the entity in charge of your health care, unless you're also saying that private insurers are in charge of your health care too. Is that what you believe? You can always vote legislators out if you don't like how they are in charge of your health care (not sure what you mean by this since all single payer does is socialize insurance, not health care). People on Medicare seem to like it more than people like private insurance. You can vote legislators out...you can't vote out insurance company Board Members or executives. And it doesn't matter what private insurance you go with, they all have the same fundamental flaw; that they put their profits ahead of your needs. Medicare doesn't do that. So the people currently in control of your health care are not concerned with your health, only their profits and are wholly unaccountable to you.

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

No, we didn't. You said it, but just because you said something doesn't then mean that something you said makes any sense. Insurance reduces costs because you pay into a premium pool instead of paying out of your own pocket. Most health care isn't something you can pay with using pocket change. It's naive and delusional to think it is.

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.

OK, so two things:

1. Now you're admitting health insurance companies put their profits above your needs. In which case, your health is under the "control" (using your words here) of a private company who is looking to profit at your expense by denying you care. This is a system you want to preserve, why? It doesn't improve outcomes. It doesn't make things cheaper. It puts more risk on you to not get sick, which in many cases isn't even something you can control because your genetics predispose you to things. You get that, right?

2. The market isn't free! You don't get to go to any doctor you want. You don't get to choose which drug you want. You only get to go to the doctors that contract with your insurance company, and you only get the drugs that your insurer decides to pay for. So if you have bipolar disorder, for instance, and your doctor prescribes you Lamictal, the insurer may only pay for the generic brand instead of the name brand, and if you take a peek at the bipolar support forums anywhere, you'd see there's a huge difference in side effects between the generic and name brand. You also don't have "free market" because you don't get to pick whatever doctor you want. So you say it's a "free market", but it's becoming crystal clear you don't even know what that means, or what you want it to mean. It's just an empty platitude meant to paper over the void in your argument from a lack of knowledge, specifics, or even understanding. There is no competition among providers for your care. The competition that exists is among insurers, which means providers have no incentives to improve outcomes. Don't you want your provider to produce the best outcome? How is that possible when they're not competing for your care? Wouldn't a true "free market" for health care be that you can go to any doctor you want, so as to get the best results? Can you do that now without first getting health insurance? No. So it's not "free market". It's not even close.

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.

You can't tell the private insurer to go "fly a kite" because the same problem with that insurer exists for any insurer. You get that, right? In all cases of private insurance, the needs of the profit margin outweigh the needs of the patient. In. Every. Case. And insurance companies aren't making these determinations based on medical needs or advisement from physicians, they're making these determinations purely on a bottom-line basis. So you are at the mercy of their profit margins. Doesn't that sound backwards to you?

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.

So this is the part where you have to not be lazy and be a more engaged citizen, which is universal of everyone. Want to know why you get such crappy representation? It's partly because of the people you vote for, but it's also because half of voters don't vote. In a system where everyone voted (and we can certainly take steps to increase turnout), if you find yourself in the minority, it's probably a good reason. But those people can be voted out whereas insurance company executives who denied your care because they wanted to inch their profit margins up by a hundredth of a percent, cannot.

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.

First of all, universal coverage merely means everyone has access to health care. Secondly, what is the "control" you're talking about? You already conceded that insurance companies control your health care. You already conceded that insurance companies put their profits above your needs. I'm guessing you also are willing to concede that the actual function of an insurance company, to administrate reimbursement, isn't germane to how health care is delivered to you. So if you concede all three of those points, you should support single-payer. So what do you support? And don't say "free market" because that's just a platitude I've already deconstructed.

 

[The Derp]

We have safety nets in place to help the poor.

Safety nets Conservatives are constantly cutting. These nets would be unnecessary if the poor were paid more. A lot of those programs are income-based, meaning you qualify for a level of benefits based on your income. So someone who works for Walmart and gets $10/hr is most likely taking another $4/hr in welfare benefits that come from your taxes. So why are we essentially subsidizing corporate profits with welfare?

If those need to be beefed up until the market is rebalanced, the we should do it. The socialists are just using the poor as an excuse to nationalize health care, which has always been on their to-do list.

Again, all we're talking about is nationalizing health insurance, not health care. Nationalizing how it gets paid for, not the care itself. You're still paying for the care by way of a payroll tax which serves as the replacement for the premium, co-pays, coinsurance, drug costs, etc. you already pay now. To this day, not one single Conservative has been able to make the case that it's more efficient, better, or beneficial to the patient to have private insurance instead of Medicare for all. The reason is because the function of what insurance companies do is not germane to health care delivery. It's not even germane to outcomes! There exists no benefit to you as a patient to have Aetna reimburse your doctor instead of Medicare. It's a part of the process of which you aren't even involved! So why do you care? You don't want someone at CMS to reimburse your doctor instead of someone at Aetna? Why does that matter to you? Both serve the same function, but only one has to take the bottom line into account ahead of your health needs.

Hookers and blow for all!

At this point, it's stupid to fight against your best interests. Having the wealthy and corporations pay for health care and education for their workers seems like a good investment. Unless you don't believe the American people are a good investment, in which case why do you hate America?

 

[The Derp]

Hold on now, forcing your ideals on everyone else is the whole point of government!

No...you're confusing government with religion.

 

[The Derp]

No letting so many vaccines as they have been pushing so widely unregulated into the system is total bullshit.

What vaccines are unnecessary, in your medical opinion? Polio? Measles? Mumps?

If you want insurance then by all means buy it but don't try to force your ideals on everyone else.

I'm trying to have a conversation with you about the realities of health care. You say you don't have insurance. Well, if you go to the ER with a condition that requires more money than you have in your savings account, what do you think happens to those costs? Do you think they magically disappear?

We start jailing these bastards and stripping their ill gotten booty from them instead of letting the system coverup for them.

OK, I'm all for that...and I think a good place to start is the health insurance companies since they profit off your poor health.

 

[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.

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???

Thinking they could walk in and chuck it, but then they find the
American electorate will kick it up their ass either way.

 

[RodISHI]

What vaccines are unnecessary, in your medical opinion? Polio? Measles? Mumps?

I personally never had any of them and have somehow survive long enough to have grown-up grandchildren old enough to marry and produce greats for me. It again should be optional if people choose to vaccinate, then those desired vaccinations should have strict limits on what can be in them. Non vital substances in any vaccine should be prohibited.

I'm trying to have a conversation with you about the realities of health care. You say you don't have insurance. Well, if you go to the ER with a condition that requires more money than you have in your savings account, what do you think happens to those costs? Do you think they magically disappear?

So happens I went to the ER last year to get a shot after walking right over the top of a ground hornets nest and being stung at least forty times. The bill was six hundred dollars. If I could have just had the ability to buy a bottle of Epinephrine (generally costing less than ten bucks) I could have simply gave myself a shot but instead there is a six hundred dollar outstanding bill at the hospital and since property taxes are behind it will have to wait to be paid. Prior to the unlawful stripping by the bank, courts, insurance companies and the sheriff here and the unattended to chemical exposure at work I would have simply wrote a check for the bill and paid it. Probably not without a bitch about the excessive cost first though.

OK, I'm all for that...and I think a good place to start is the health insurance companies since they profit off your poor health.

I think the best place to start is with the banksters, biologist creating the crap for a profit even if it is injurious to health, regulators that have looked the other way and any of the other profiteers who have been pushing this crap that is injurious to all peoples well being. If that means jailing administrators of these large also corps, lying lobbyist, and politicians so be it.

 

[dblack]

Hold on now, forcing your ideals on everyone else is the whole point of government!

No...you're confusing government with religion.

A lot of people do that it would seem.

 

[dblack]

We have safety nets in place to help the poor.

Safety nets Conservatives are constantly cutting. These nets would be unnecessary if the poor were paid more. A lot of those programs are income-based, meaning you qualify for a level of benefits based on your income. So someone who works for Walmart and gets $10/hr is most likely taking another $4/hr in welfare benefits that come from your taxes. So why are we essentially subsidizing corporate profits with welfare?

Pretty fucked up, isn't it? As to the 'why', that's a good question. Democracy?

If those need to be beefed up until the market is rebalanced, the we should do it. The socialists are just using the poor as an excuse to nationalize health care, which has always been on their to-do list.

Again, all we're talking about is nationalizing health insurance, not health care. Nationalizing how it gets paid for, not the care itself.

Now that's funny!

You're still paying for the care by way of a payroll tax which serves as the replacement for the premium, co-pays, coinsurance, drug costs, etc. you already pay now. To this day, not one single Conservative has been able to make the case that it's more efficient, better, or beneficial to the patient to have private insurance instead of Medicare for all. The reason is because the function of what insurance companies do is not germane to health care delivery. It's not even germane to outcomes! There exists no benefit to you as a patient to have Aetna reimburse your doctor instead of Medicare. It's a part of the process of which you aren't even involved! So why do you care? You don't want someone at CMS to reimburse your doctor instead of someone at Aetna? Why does that matter to you? Both serve the same function, but only one has to take the bottom line into account ahead of your health needs.

It matters a lot. I'll explain it again: You don't have to play ball with corporate insurance companies. They can't make you buy their shit. Government forces you to buy its shit by default.

Hookers and blow for all!

At this point, it's stupid to fight against your best interests.

People should be free to decide for themselves what their best interests are.

 

[Penelope]

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.

You do know the pop of the US don't you? I would imagine its easy to get 100,000 votes online. Go door to door in middle class USA.

 

[The Derp]

Pretty fucked up, isn't it? As to the 'why', that's a good question. Democracy?

No...because our campaigns are not publicly funded, so candidates take money from special interests that then expect those candidates to act in their interests when they get elected. Like keeping the minimum wage low so businesses can skirt away with more profits that they never pass on to workers or customers, even though we're promised they will "trickle down".

Now that's funny!

All single payer does is socialize the entity that reimburses your provider. That's it. Nothing more.

It matters a lot. I'll explain it again: You don't have to play ball with corporate insurance companies.

Yes, you do! You might not right now, but you most likely will because unless you're clairvoyant, you have no idea the state of your health 1 day, 1 month, 1 year from now. Insurance is a hedge against that. So you may think that just because you're healthy now, you don't need insurance, but chances are you are going to have some kind of major illness that requires expensive treatment between now and before you become eligible for Medicare...which is a government-run payor, by the way, and which people love more than Trump and the Republican Party. By a lot.

They can't make you buy their shit. Government forces you to buy its shit by default.

Because you people don't want Medicare-for-all. We have to have universal coverage because that's the only way the system makes any sense. You understand that people without insurance don't get treated for free, right? Someone has to pay for it if they cannot. That's what you don't seem to get. You think that because you don't have insurance, and you go to the ER and they don't make you pay anything, that it's free. Well, it's not. Time to start thinking bigger picture.

People should be free to decide for themselves what their best interests are.

Your health isn't your best interest? Your bank account isn't your best interest? OK...

 

[dblack]

Now that's funny!

All single payer does is socialize the entity that reimburses your provider. That's it. Nothing more.

If government becomes the single payer for doctors, doctors will be de facto employees of the government. The government will decide which services people "need" and how much they are worth. I don't know how you steer around that one.

It matters a lot. I'll explain it again: You don't have to play ball with corporate insurance companies.

Yes, you do!

No, ACA notwithstanding, I don't. Neither do you. Open your eyes man, you're mired in a false dilemma.

They can't make you buy their shit. Government forces you to buy its shit by default.

Because you people don't want Medicare-for-all.

???

People should be free to decide for themselves what their best interests are.

Your health isn't your best interest? Your bank account isn't your best interest? OK...

No, it's your dream of ubiquitous government that's not in my best interest.

 

[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.

You do know the pop of the US don't you? I would imagine its easy to get 100,000 votes online. Go door to door in middle class USA.

Grassroots is generally all American citizens and if I went door to door I can assure you it would not take long to get a 100,000 signatures. With some help from my children and going door to door putting out flyers in 1992 we got a whole town out to vote and I was place under arrest on bogus charges the next night because it pissed off an RC magistrate that thought he was hot stuff that should be able to dictate how other people should be regardless of those peoples constitutional rights as USA citizens. Needless to say I wasn't the first one he'd attempted to abuse but a few years later the people voted him off of the bench. that also pissed off a load of Dems throughout because that year it was a Republican governor that won along with the magistrate being tossed.

 

[MarkClaude]

The biggest error above is to think that single payer makes doctors the slaves of the government.

Think of all the contractors and sub-contractors from garbage collectors to park sanitation to private prison corporations to DOD suppliers,etc., so for and so on.

They would not have it any other way.

The libertarian model simply does not work in the 21st century.

 

[dblack]

The biggest error above is to think that single payer makes doctors the slaves of the government.

Who said that? It makes them employees of government. Worse, it makes government the only employer. That doesn't make them slaves. They don't have to practice medicine, and many won't. But it does restrict our freedom, and puts our health care under control of the government. Which is the point of the whole exercise.

The libertarian model simply does not work in the 21st century.

Freedom doesn't work. Submit! Obey!

 

[MarkClaude]

dblack, your argument fails.

(1) Nothing inherently wrong with being a government employee.
(2) Nothing says doctors can't run private practices.
(3) Nothing restrict our freedom as consumers by having private companies compete for the governmentpayers.

What are you arguing about?

 

[RodISHI]

"1) Nothing inherently wrong with being a government employee." It is a big problem when these people believe that they are above the law and everyone else are nothing more than their subjects to do with at their will.

 

[dblack]

dblack, your argument fails.

(1) Nothing inherently wrong with being a government employee.

Never said there was.

(2) Nothing says doctors can't run private practices.

Never said there was.

(3) Nothing restrict our freedom as consumers by having private companies compete for the governmentpayers.

If someone takes your money, and spends it on your behalf - on healthcare for example - they have very definitely restricted your freedom to spend that money as you see fit. If you think not, send me your money. I'll be happy to spend it for you!

What are you arguing about?

I'm arguing against granting government control of our health care. I think it's a dreadful mistake and will feed into our next bout with fascism.