|
Baloogan posted:lol @ no t understanding how annoying it is that the government can force me to pay for healthcare It's like you have no agency! Get a private service or we'll fine you anyway (because why wouldn't you get healthcare if you're too poor to afford health care?) Oh btw even though we fined you it still doesn't count as healthcare so it's just money down the drain either way.
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:21 |
|
|
Baloogan posted:lol @ no t understanding how annoying it is that the government can force me to pay for healthcare well, unless you are immortal, someone is going to pay for your healthcare at some point in time. everyone making a contribution to the healthcare system based on their means (i.e. through taxes, or premiums) makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:lol @ no t understanding how annoying it is that the government can force me to pay for healthcare lol the us government forces everyone under 65 to pay for old peoples' healthcare while simultaneously trying to destroy the system once we get old enough to use it
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
reproduction was a mistake
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well, unless you are immortal, someone is going to pay for your healthcare at some point in time. everyone making a contribution to the healthcare system based on their means (i.e. through taxes, or premiums) makes sense. Except when they gotta pay real money for the medication they give you. Then the hospitals refuse to give the full healthcare needed without proof they have But just sending them on their way still costs a lot due to administration and dug costs, as well as the wages needed to pay back college. So yes, someone will pay for your healthcare eventually. gently caress them, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
The joke is it's us, the people who will be alive in the future when we can't afford our future healthcare and neither can our kids, leaving no one with healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
lol if you haven't stockpiled tons of bandaids
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:lol if you haven't stockpiled tons of bandaids lol, just lol, if you haven't been researching the dark arts of necromancy in order to turn yourself into a immortal undead lich that will haunt the earth for all eternity
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
ThndrShk2k posted:Ultimately if you're a hobo and literally can't afford it, the hospital can write it off reminder: cc's main beef with single payer is it'll put the poor insurance company workers out of business never mind that a medicare for all system will need thousands of employees with experience in processing claims and medical coding and office space. i mean, where the hell would you find those people or that the government has never made policy or favored industries that put other workers out of business. like we didn't just have an election that in part revolved around the plight of coal workers not being able to find work that was in no way a direct result of government policy
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:reminder: cc's main beef with single payer is it'll put the poor insurance company workers out of business i mean medicare for all will require vastly fewer employees. that's a selling point - it's far more efficient. that also makes it politically difficult even leaving out the general fear that comes from any changes healthcare system. and promising people there will be future jobs somewhere in america at some point in time does not tend to reduce anxiety. if we can achieve the same result that is, say, 5% less efficient without leaving the current structure, why not do that? that is my main thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i mean medicare for all will require vastly fewer employees. that's a selling point - it's far more efficient. that also makes it politically difficult even leaving out the general fear that comes from any changes healthcare system. and promising people there will be future jobs somewhere in america at some point in time does not tend to reduce anxiety. if we can achieve the same result that is, say, 5% less efficient without leaving the current structure, why not do that? that is my main thing. Healthcare should be free.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Healthcare should be free. i agree. there are ways to achieve that, or at least get very close, without single payer. in fact, singlepayer doesn't even guarantee free healthcare. the ideal scenario isn't even single payer at all, but actually a totally nationalized healthcare sector.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well, unless you are immortal, someone is going to pay for your healthcare at some point in time. everyone making a contribution to the healthcare system based on their means (i.e. through taxes, or premiums) makes sense. that's why we need single payer. obamacare with its mandate makes it obv that it's best for our nation if everyone is insured. problem is, obamacare puts way too much burden on the poor to get that healthcare, and punishes them if they fail. singlepayer is the only moral solution, as we have to force the rich to pay their fair share and relieve the burden of the poor right now the rich benefit disproportionately from the US medical system. they are not only well taken care of, but they also get the benefit of the health of labor. their factories and jobs sap the livelihoods and health from workers over time, until workers are left unable to work, at which point the rich's solution is "just die". imagine it through the lens of automation. laborers are the machines making wealth and goods for the rich, but instead of repairing their machines when they have issues, they just throw them out and yell at the government to buy them new ones. Condiv has issued a correction as of 22:22 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
you'll lose CT but let's be honest this is a good thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:you'll lose CT but let's be honest this is a good thing and iowa but same
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
I'm a single issue voter and my single issue is the destruction of iowa
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that's why we need single payer. obamacare with its mandate makes it obv that it's best for our nation if everyone is insured. problem is, obamacare puts way too much burden on the poor to get that healthcare, and punishes them if they fail. singlepayer is the only moral solution, as we have to force the rich to pay their fair share and relieve the burden of the poor i agree with your premise, in general. i'm differentiating between different universal healthcare structures. many systems we typically see as "single payer" are actually multipayer with private insurance companies. the easiest path for us is for the government to offer free or very low cost insurance to all americans that covers most basic procedures and emergencies. people can then purchase subsidized, inexpensive supplemental insurance to make up for any gaps. meanwhile, the government should negotiate on behalf of everyone for the cost of medical procedures, providing bonus payments to doctors working in underserved communities. that combined with spending on R&D targeting the most destructive diseases and making medical school free would dramatically bring down the cost of providing care and make healthcare nearly free for most people. it would lead to some job losses but not the total destruction of a huge job sector, and it's familiar enough that it'll be easier for people to stomach with less anxiety. i didn't invent that model, of course. it's the one used by france, japan, etc. it's not that medicare for all is a bad idea - it's not. but if we can get basically the same thing easier, why not do that? why be married to one particular model?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i agree with your premise, in general. i'm differentiating between different universal healthcare structures. many systems we typically see as "single payer" are actually multipayer with private insurance companies. the easiest path for us is for the government to offer free or very low cost insurance to all americans that covers most basic procedures and emergencies. people can then purchase subsidized, inexpensive supplemental insurance to make up for any gaps. meanwhile, the government should negotiate on behalf of everyone for the cost of medical procedures, providing bonus payments to doctors working in underserved communities. that combined with spending on R&D targeting the most destructive diseases and making medical school free would dramatically bring down the cost of providing care and make healthcare nearly free for most people. it would lead to some job losses but not the total destruction of a huge job sector, and it's familiar enough that it'll be easier for people to stomach with less anxiety. the private insurance aspect of france's model was bolted on as far as i can see. according to my coworkers, the governmental part of the system, securite sociale, used to cover 100% of costs for most things. then under the global neoliberal tide, they reduced the amount paid out to 70% with private insurance having to be purchased to cover the remaining 30% of medical costs. if we could even transition to the mixed public/private system of current day france tho we'd be much better off. my private insurance premiums are a grand total of $200 a year, and the poor are capable of receiving a 100% costs paid version of securite sociale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Here's a question: How do you sell medicare for all when that would make millions of health jobs redundant, when you're already losing elections because of a few hundred thousand miners/manufacturers
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:it loving terrifies me that your part of the democratic machine cc
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
ThndrShk2k posted:The joke is it's us, the people who will be alive in the future when we can't afford our future healthcare and neither can our kids, leaving no one with healthcare. excuse me i know of a few people who will have the greatest healthcare science and money can provide them the're the captains of industry, the centi-millionaires and billionaires 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Here's a question: How do you sell medicare for all when that would make millions of health jobs redundant, when you're already losing elections because of a few hundred thousand miners/manufacturers Well politicians are supposed to study what's best for the greater good and choose a course of action even if it's unpopular. That's literally their job. Also if the cost and time savings were enough we could give everyone a mincome even if they don't work 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Here's a question: How do you sell medicare for all when that would make millions of health jobs redundant, when you're already losing elections because of a few hundred thousand miners/manufacturers worst case dems lose which they would anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Here's a question: How do you sell medicare for all when that would make millions of health jobs redundant, when you're already losing elections because of a few hundred thousand miners/manufacturers The vast majority of healthcare positions are versatile enough to flex towards a different, short-staffed field. It would be real nice if healthcare lawyers could contribute to the pool of public attorneys
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:lol, just lol, if you haven't been researching the dark arts of necromancy in order to turn yourself into a immortal undead lich that will haunt the earth for all eternity cybermancy is imminent
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The vast majority of healthcare positions are versatile enough to flex towards a different, short-staffed field. They're called hospitals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:reproduction was a mistake yeah imo gently caress the self-replicating RNAs that started it all
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:lol @ no t understanding how annoying it is that the government can force me to pay for healthcare I'm actually one of these people. Have to pay $700 because I do not have health insurance. zegermans posted:Here's a question: How do you sell medicare for all when that would make millions of health jobs redundant, when you're already losing elections because of a few hundred thousand miners/manufacturers Medicare is the most popular program in America. People want healthcare. Put two and two together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
social services were a mistake because it lets people live longer instead of going straight into the welcoming arms of death
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:social services were a mistake because it lets people live longer instead of going straight into the welcoming arms of death Boomers instead of people but yeah
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:lol @ no t understanding how annoying it is that the government can force me to pay for healthcare it's understandable that americans are loving retarded, yes
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
next thing you know the government will be forcing you to insure your car as well. absolute madness
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
under paul ryan's plan, americans will have the option to wait until they get sick to buy health insurance. as a moron, i can't see any problem with that proposal
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
I can fully understand why someone would be mad that the government is going to make them buy the lovely private health insurance that was offered on the exchanges or forfeit 2% of their income.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Frankly I'm most shocked that Ryan's plan doens't voucherize medicare. He was planting the seeds for it right after the election, intending to frame it as "we have to do this because the ACA cuts to medicare advantage of critically destabilized it!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Frankly I'm most shocked that Ryan's plan doens't voucherize medicare. He was planting the seeds for it right after the election, intending to frame it as "we have to do this because the ACA cuts to medicare advantage of critically destabilized it!" the joke is that the ahca repeals a 0.9% tax on people making over $200k a year that has extended the life of the medicare trust fund, creating a self-fulfilling crisis that will demand voucherization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
zegermans posted:I can fully understand why someone would be mad that the government is going to make them buy the lovely private health insurance that was offered on the exchanges or forfeit 2% of their income. There obviously should have been a public option. But in the absence of that, it makes sense that everyone should be paying in to whatever dumb system we have. Otherwise it all crumbles due to adverse selection, which is what we're about to witness under the new plan that throws out the oh-so-annoying individual mandate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
I vote for whoever gives me more zeros on my pay check!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Medicare is the most popular program in America. People want healthcare. Put two and two together. "medicare for all" is a brand name - the sanders plan doesn't have much in common with actual medicare, which has both premiums (on part b), deductibles, and typically needs supplementary insurance to make healthcare for serious illness actually affordable. the sanders plan is a far more extensive system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:21 |
|
|
zegermans posted:Here's a question: How do you sell medicare for all when that would make millions of health jobs redundant, when you're already losing elections because of a few hundred thousand miners/manufacturers How would it make millions of health jobs redundant?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 01:38
|
|
