So the republican solution to our healthcare system is as little government as possible right?

[danielpalos]

Yes, the solution is as little government interference as possible. Allow competition just like in the market place. Allow the insurance companies to compete interstate.

Government solves all problems for the right wing. Why not jail employers who don't pay enough.

Sure, why not. That would be what a true blue Commie does.

Like criminalizing abortion and whining about the cost of welfare?

Once again you show your true authoritarian nature. You justify murdering innocent human life in order to put more money in your greedy authoritarian pocket. You assume every child aborted will be on welfare. Um, you're a very sick evil creature.

Mining the border is worse. An ounce of prevention can solve the problem you allege morality about.

 

[danielpalos]

It’s some type of perversion expecting the successful to pay for the unsuccessful....

the rich can afford it.

Irrelevant...
And by the way the well is dry

Multitudes of sins, is what the rich should consider.

So you think being wealthy is a sin? When did you become a Christian believer?

Since I discovered we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

 

[otto105]

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

1. Healthcare is NOT a Right. It never has been and never should be. It is a privilege for those who can afford it or get it through their employers.

2. The US Constitution has no provision or mandate for the Government to be involved in any way with the healthcare industry or medical issues in general.

Provide for the general welfare...

 

[BS Filter]

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

1. Healthcare is NOT a Right. It never has been and never should be. It is a privilege for those who can afford it or get it through their employers.

2. The US Constitution has no provision or mandate for the Government to be involved in any way with the healthcare industry or medical issues in general.

Provide for the general welfare...

If that claus means government run healthcare for every citizen, then why wasn't it instilled when the Constitution was ratified?

 

[Dale Smith]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Leftards always believe that "MO' gubermint" is the answer......

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

OMG

OMG

OMG

OMG

The stupidity continues.

 

[Doc1]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

"The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance."

This is a lie. MOST plans were at a million. Some were even 2 million

 

[Doc1]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Which Congressional reps are insurance experts? Which ones know beans about healthcare? They foisted crappy insurance on the working poor to boast about how many folks were "covered". And they HID the "medicare expansion" costs in the pool rather than funding them.

Even the NAME of the program is an evil taunt. Because NOTHING about actual market costs of services or premium control was ever part of the plan. Other than putting more debt on the Treasury.

You want to solve healthcare? Focus on the 10 to 15% UNINSURED. And give some BARE MIN guidelines for individual insurance plans that includes a REASONABLE definition of "pre-existing".. 60% of every person over 40 right now is declared "pre-existing" simply because they are taking cholesterol drugs or blood pressure meds . That's stupid. It's preventative medicine. NOT necessarily an indicator of outcome.

SHOULD BE MINIMAL dictates on insurance from the FEDERAL level. Let the states experiment WITHOUT Federal intervention. Find the concepts that work.

What you are talking about is something the government has to implement. Insurance companies will not do that on their own.

Also, individual states already have the power to design their own healthcare plans.

Misleading, they still must follow the ten basic coverages. If they add benefits it raises the price even more.

 

[Doc1]

Honey child, Billy000 Boo Boo. You can't afford it. And neither can our government. Is it clear for you now? Just because you think you can spend someone else's money doesn't not mean however many mental gymnastics you pull justifies doing so.

Oh and the excuses you give for people spending money that they don't have doesn't work either. Which would explain why you are lost in confusion.

Oh it’s definitely affordable. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any nation on earth.

As stands it is not.

 

[Doc1]

it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept

Exhibit A of WHY we want government totally OUT of healthcare.... totally, not too little bs... totally.

The issue was "senior drugs." Seniors, more precisely the AARP, were bitching to get the govt to pay for their pills. W wanted to suck up and get the AARP behind him...

Solution - SOCIALIZE senior drugs... put it on the taxpayer tab...

1. did the US taxpayer get a VOLUME DISCOUNT from drug companies for the pills?

A: NO, the US Congress sold out and made it a RETAIL PRICE, which has sent DRUG STOCKS soaring and drug company donations to pols soaring as well

2. Was the W WH honest about the ESTIMATED COST of socializing senior drugs?

A: NO, the W WH lied and threatened the actuary who did the "static" analysis of the cost (static meaning grandpa who got 3 prescriptions in 2003 would still get 3 and only 3 after socializing, instead of getting his "doctor" to up that number to 8 so that "grandson" could take the other 5 and sell them at the public high school)

Inquiry Confirms Top Medicare Official Threatened Actuary Over Cost of Drug Benefits

"An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.

A report on the investigation, issued Tuesday, says the administrator of Medicare, Thomas A. Scully, issued the threat to Richard S. Foster while lawmakers were considering huge changes in the program last year. As a result, Mr. Foster's cost estimate did not become known until after the legislation was enacted."

3. Did involving govt "more" in socializing senior drugs have any "harmful side effects..."

A: yeah, it has flooded our high schools with taxpayer funded pills like OxyContin and "Lore Tab."



Should we "trust" govt to "do more?"

SEE ABOVE FOR SOME "GUIDANCE" to that answer....

You're describing REPUBLICAN government.

Dems tried in vain to get Medicare Plan B to negotiate drug prices but the Bush Admin refused...claiming the "free market" would produce the best result.

Obviously that was a fantasy.

(Sigh) First it's Part B, and those are drug related treaments in the Hosital or infusion in a clinic. Some eye shots are also covered that way.
Part D is the drug coverages

 

[Doc1]

Yes, the solution is as little government interference as possible. Allow competition just like in the market place. Allow the insurance companies to compete interstate.

Government solves all problems for the right wing. Why not jail employers who don't pay enough.

Ok...so, you're in a thread making the case for the Gov to "solve" the Health Care issue and now you decry the Pubs as users of the Gov to solve their problems?

Aren't you special?

 

[Kondor3]

So the republican solution to our healthcare system is as little government as possible right?

Many who vote Republican hold that we should have NO healthcare system whatsoever...

Such folk hold that government does not belong in the healthcare business in any way, shape or form...

For such folk, let us be fair...

Let us allow anyone who feels that way to opt-out of Medicare altogether...

After they sign a quit-claim that releases all Federal and State and Local governments from providing them with health benefits...

Let us allow anyone who feels that way to recoup what they've paid into Medicare, as an annuity...

An annuity paid to their private healthcare insurance carrier, to cover their private insurance premiums...

But when the annuity runs out, it runs out... that's it... nothing more...

And when they face catastrophic illness that would otherwise be paid-for in whole or in part by Medicare or Medicaid...

The Gubmint merely waves their old Quit-Claim in their faces and wishes them good luck and tells them to go away...

Let them pledge their personal assets and mortgage their houses and hock their jewelry to pay for that open-heart surgery or chemo...

At that point, the rest of us will be obliged by-law to sit back and watch them flop-around, trying (and failing) to obtain such care.

Perhaps the Socialists in Sweden or Norway will take pity on them and squeeze them in for a round or two of chemo.

 

[Lesh]

it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept

Exhibit A of WHY we want government totally OUT of healthcare.... totally, not too little bs... totally.

The issue was "senior drugs." Seniors, more precisely the AARP, were bitching to get the govt to pay for their pills. W wanted to suck up and get the AARP behind him...

Solution - SOCIALIZE senior drugs... put it on the taxpayer tab...

1. did the US taxpayer get a VOLUME DISCOUNT from drug companies for the pills?

A: NO, the US Congress sold out and made it a RETAIL PRICE, which has sent DRUG STOCKS soaring and drug company donations to pols soaring as well

2. Was the W WH honest about the ESTIMATED COST of socializing senior drugs?

A: NO, the W WH lied and threatened the actuary who did the "static" analysis of the cost (static meaning grandpa who got 3 prescriptions in 2003 would still get 3 and only 3 after socializing, instead of getting his "doctor" to up that number to 8 so that "grandson" could take the other 5 and sell them at the public high school)

Inquiry Confirms Top Medicare Official Threatened Actuary Over Cost of Drug Benefits

"An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.

A report on the investigation, issued Tuesday, says the administrator of Medicare, Thomas A. Scully, issued the threat to Richard S. Foster while lawmakers were considering huge changes in the program last year. As a result, Mr. Foster's cost estimate did not become known until after the legislation was enacted."

3. Did involving govt "more" in socializing senior drugs have any "harmful side effects..."

A: yeah, it has flooded our high schools with taxpayer funded pills like OxyContin and "Lore Tab."



Should we "trust" govt to "do more?"

SEE ABOVE FOR SOME "GUIDANCE" to that answer....

You're describing REPUBLICAN government.

Dems tried in vain to get Medicare Plan B to negotiate drug prices but the Bush Admin refused...claiming the "free market" would produce the best result.

Obviously that was a fantasy.

(Sigh) First it's Part B, and those are drug related treaments in the Hosital or infusion in a clinic. Some eye shots are also covered that way.
Part D is the drug coverages

Actually I was talking about the Republican refusal to allow the government to negotiate drug prices FOR Part D Medicare.

 

[sparky]

So the republican solution to our healthcare system is as little government as possible right?

No the gub'mit solution to HC is to grant themselves a policy paid for by the taxpayer, that the taxpayer will never and a day be privy to

~S~

 

[Doc1]

it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept

Exhibit A of WHY we want government totally OUT of healthcare.... totally, not too little bs... totally.

The issue was "senior drugs." Seniors, more precisely the AARP, were bitching to get the govt to pay for their pills. W wanted to suck up and get the AARP behind him...

Solution - SOCIALIZE senior drugs... put it on the taxpayer tab...

1. did the US taxpayer get a VOLUME DISCOUNT from drug companies for the pills?

A: NO, the US Congress sold out and made it a RETAIL PRICE, which has sent DRUG STOCKS soaring and drug company donations to pols soaring as well

2. Was the W WH honest about the ESTIMATED COST of socializing senior drugs?

A: NO, the W WH lied and threatened the actuary who did the "static" analysis of the cost (static meaning grandpa who got 3 prescriptions in 2003 would still get 3 and only 3 after socializing, instead of getting his "doctor" to up that number to 8 so that "grandson" could take the other 5 and sell them at the public high school)

Inquiry Confirms Top Medicare Official Threatened Actuary Over Cost of Drug Benefits

"An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.

A report on the investigation, issued Tuesday, says the administrator of Medicare, Thomas A. Scully, issued the threat to Richard S. Foster while lawmakers were considering huge changes in the program last year. As a result, Mr. Foster's cost estimate did not become known until after the legislation was enacted."

3. Did involving govt "more" in socializing senior drugs have any "harmful side effects..."

A: yeah, it has flooded our high schools with taxpayer funded pills like OxyContin and "Lore Tab."



Should we "trust" govt to "do more?"

SEE ABOVE FOR SOME "GUIDANCE" to that answer....

You're describing REPUBLICAN government.

Dems tried in vain to get Medicare Plan B to negotiate drug prices but the Bush Admin refused...claiming the "free market" would produce the best result.

Obviously that was a fantasy.

(Sigh) First it's Part B, and those are drug related treaments in the Hosital or infusion in a clinic. Some eye shots are also covered that way.
Part D is the drug coverages

Actually I was talking about the Republican refusal to allow the government to negotiate drug prices FOR Part D Medicare.

Big Pharma owns both sides of the aisle, it is not simply a "Republican" issue. I detest Pubs like McConnell, McCain, Ryan etc., they are there to make A LOT of money. That's why they are ALL there.

 

[Doc1]

So the republican solution to our healthcare system is as little government as possible right?

No the gub'mit solution to HC is to grant themselves a policy paid for by the taxpayer, that the taxpayer will never and a day be privy to

~S~

THAT is the only reason it passed, they were immune to it.

 

[danielpalos]

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

1. Healthcare is NOT a Right. It never has been and never should be. It is a privilege for those who can afford it or get it through their employers.

2. The US Constitution has no provision or mandate for the Government to be involved in any way with the healthcare industry or medical issues in general.

Provide for the general welfare...

If that claus means government run healthcare for every citizen, then why wasn't it instilled when the Constitution was ratified?

for the same reason they did not enumerate alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[danielpalos]

In many respects reflected from world history, it is reasonable to suggest that too much government is not a good thing. However, “too much” is a very relative concept. There really is such a thing as “too little of government” and I mean that beyond the measure of anarchy as an alternative. Government, when designed properly, can benefit the lives of its citizens.
ACA is an important point to raise in the this topic. While it is certainly flawed and has failed in some of its promises in terms of affordability, it’s never the less improved healthcare in many ways. It has not changed that ACA has protection for pre-existing conditions for anyone who has health insurance. There is also a much higher cap for how much an insurance policy will cover for a medical event. The cap used to be 500,000 but it became 1,000,000 thanks to ACA. Now you can argue that ACA undermines the definition of insurance, but the point here is that healthcare should not be treated like insurance.

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government. With less government, what is to prevent the healthcare industry from undermining the healthcare their consumers need?

This is already true.

Insurance company: “Hey guess what, if you pay $600 a month, we will eliminate your deductible for basic healthcare needs!”

The point is that Big Pharma has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for their shareholders. This includes undermining the plan the consumer signed up for to save money. Business is business after all.

Only government can ensure that consumers get basic healthcare services.

Leftards always believe that "MO' gubermint" is the answer......

especially at the Border or Trade Wars, instead of simply being better Dealers in Art.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, the solution is as little government interference as possible. Allow competition just like in the market place. Allow the insurance companies to compete interstate.

Government solves all problems for the right wing. Why not jail employers who don't pay enough.

Ok...so, you're in a thread making the case for the Gov to "solve" the Health Care issue and now you decry the Pubs as users of the Gov to solve their problems?

Aren't you special?

we have a general welfare clause not any form of general warfare clause or common offense clause.

 

[danielpalos]

So the republican solution to our healthcare system is as little government as possible right?

No the gub'mit solution to HC is to grant themselves a policy paid for by the taxpayer, that the taxpayer will never and a day be privy to

~S~

Should we make a motion for "Articles of Enforcement" of a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, in out at-will employment States?

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is market friendly.