|
Spuckuk posted:Every day I find it hilarious and sad that people in the US, people fight tooth and nail to deny themselves Universal Health Care that every other first world country has. It's never even presented as an option, and when it is, it's shown in a terrible light. To even know what UHC is in America makes you a policy wonk.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
The best part of all of this is that we have to defend Obamacare as something else than a complete handout to insurance companies, lie about how premiums TOTALLY NEVER WENT UP FOR ANYONE EVER, etc. just because the alternative is worse
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Obamacare is not a complete handout to insurance companies: the alternative is worse because its dramatically worse than Obamacare, not because it's worse than the pre-Obamacare status quo (it's not, the pre-Obamacare status quo was just that loving terrible). Yeah, like I said, I don't disagree that it's better than the pre-Obama status quo. But denying the problems with it (spiraling premiums in some states, still ends up costing you $10k to go to the hospital on a bronze plan, etc.) is delusional.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
It's sort of weird seeing people defend PPACA as a jobs program when they'd never do the same for the F-35 program.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Are we going to use the F-35 to get poor people to the hospital faster? Is that how it's comparable to the PPACA and not a ridiculous comparison? Nah, you completely missed the point, which was that defending PPACA purely on the basis that it creates jobs and that changing it will put people out of work is pretty silly. Mostly because that line of work can be used triply so to discount single payer, which inherently will put A LOT of insurance and administrative people out of work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It definitely would be if anybody did this. It's happened in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Yeah, I was shocked too. They started her at $180, then it went down to $82, and now it's going down to $16. It's a joke. Pretty sure that would've happened under Obama too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:They've been priming for this though, and arguing that current medicaid / low tier obamacare plan coverage is so bad it is in fact worse than no coverage. I'm expecting a full court press of the message "Obamacare coverage is worse than no coverage, so 24 million less insured is good". Unfortunately, Obamacare plans aren't that bad but the mini med bullshit that the Dems capitulated on are
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Obamacare almost directly led to a growth in the healthcare industry employment Here it is, for whoever asked
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:What's pricing likely to look like if all that the Republicans accomplish is removing the individual mandate, and nothing else changes? Put Aetna, Cigna, Humana, UHC, and other insurers on a one-click put order and smash that motherfucking button when this happens
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
I don't think it's explicitly about loving over poor people, though they definitely get hard at the thought of it. It's more about ensuring an ever-increasing level of precarity in the workforce, so workers have less and less leverage with which to demand higher wages or better protection. Lack of healthcare is a positive motivator.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Sloober posted:The article says consulting firms used by dems are being paid by health interest lobbyists to work against it, notably insurance companies. Read the article before you react. No worries guys, it's only Democratic firms assisting among the largest contributors to Democrats. Nothing to see here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:I think the idea is that all of the money spent on current insurance policies could fund UHC, and just outright cover everyone with less complexity than the current system. So instead of a pay raise or higher taxes, the same money that's already being spent now would be spent elsewhere. Ah, but this argument assumes that helping others is something Americans care about. I think most Americans would see it as "I lose a perk so some rear end in a top hat and his kids get covered". Also, don't we spend more public money on healthcare, per capita, than any other nation on earth? Why couldn't we just use that pool of money and not reallocate premiums to taxes?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Xae posted:It can't unfortunately. The amount of solvable inefficiency in the system is less than the amount of additional care that would be demanded. This is such horseshit, we pay so much more for healthcare in per capita dollars both publicly and privately than any other country and yet, for some reason, "the amount of money we pay today can't fund UHC". Horseshit, bullshit, nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Xae posted:Reality doesn't give a gently caress what names you call it. Hmm, reality. You mean that reality that shows that every other country on earth has more efficient care than ours? Literally every other single country on earth? Actually, I take it back, I think Haiti might be lower on that scale, so point to you. I've already looked into the reason we pay so much more: because we let so many assholes profit off the care of the sick. Other countries don't allow that, which is reflected in their lower infant mortality, longer life expectancies, and lower cost to both the public and private. LeeMajors posted:Basically all things the GOP wants to avoid because they want us to be slaves to our employers and to insurers. I think healthcare is the most radicalizing issue of our time. Take an issue like climate change, or racism, or abortion. Do we know how to solve any of those issues? Maybe, to an extent, but there are definitely multiple valid viewpoints, even if I don't personally agree with them. UHC is different - the problem is solved has been solved for decades elsewhere, the only reason we don't reform is because we care more about enriching insurers, hospitals, doctors, pharma, and medical device manufacturers more than we care about the health of the American public. That's it, literally the only reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Xae posted:Wow I'm glad to hear you've got it all figured out! Interesting, I hadn't heard that the real solution was to unskew the liberal medical statistics industry. How about this: gently caress all the stuff you talked about, let's try literally any other system at random, they're all better.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
"Sure, we have literal MSF-style medical encampments in the poorest areas of the US where people don't have access to even basic medical or dental services, and people break down crying when they get a $100 treatment for free, but in reality ICD10 and MRIs means this doesn't happen" liberal propaganda:  loving MRIs killing our children! liberal CDC is agenda 21!!! call to action fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Citing Colorado Care as evidence for people's taste for single payer is so goddamn stupid. I couldn't be a stauncher advocate for single payer, but making one state in the union UHC, especially one surrounded by crushing poverty, doesn't really fit with the idea of socialized insurance.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:IIRC, the cost of Medicare/Medicaid/other public health expenditures per capita in the USA is the same as the most expensive anywhere else in the world. Even if covering literally everyone else was free we'd still be the most expensive and I'm not really sure why that is. UMMM excuse me, Lurk More and read the ICD10 about the ID-10-T in subsection 14.88. How loving DARE you observe that everyone else pays less to get more. Simplex posted:So you're saying that if you were a Coloradoan, and even though you personally support universal health care, you would have voted against the amendment? No, I voted for it, primarily because I knew it wouldn't pass. It doesn't make sense to have UHC on a state level when people can freely come and go, much in the same way that everyone agrees non-mandate health insurance that covers prior conditions would incur a death spiral.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Simplex posted:I'm going to cut to the chase here because the point we are going to reach is that the people who support UHH voted yes, but the amendment failed because people were concerned dirty, poor (New) Mexicans were going to flood the state and steal our sweet, sweet healthcare. Again that doesn't suggest a whole lot of wide spread support for progressivism even among likely democratic voters. They're not dirty or even particularly poor, you loving idiot racist, but allowing people who've been abandoned by the US and other states to move to CO to have everything treated solely at CO expense doesn't make sense. There's a concept called insurance you may want to look up, particularly why the individual mandate was a part of Obamacare. Only national level UHC makes sense - if you don't agree, point to another country where some regions are UHC and others aren't. esquilax posted:How so? The plan was supposed to be a system of insurance for CO residents only. Hospitals would still charge out-of-staters Because there are people that we currently literally let die in gutters who would, I'm *guessing*, probably try to scrape together a few bucks to get a permanent CO address if it were a matter of life and death. call to action fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
esquilax posted:People who are dying in the gutters can already scrape together a few bucks to move to any state that offers them medicaid. If they aren't poor, then they can purchase private insurance coverage. This isn't a problem that is caused by Coloradocare, which is literally just another health insurance plan So are you aware who pays for the majority of Medicaid, versus who would pay for the majority of ColoradoCare? Because someone moving to take advantage of federal programs is different from someone moving to take advantage of state programs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Simplex posted:I appreciate your post and your opinion, but I'm genuinely curious why you believe there is an ethical imperative to provide universal, nationwide health care if you also believe that the sick or low-earning power poor are a net drain on our social institutions. Also is stricter border control and security a necessary precondition to universal, nationwide health care? This seems like such a simple question. Just because I'd vote for a severely handicapped man to be eligible for national UHC doesn't mean I'd want him to be part of a healthcare co-op that only consists of me, him, and a handful of other neighbors. Considering it risk spreading.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:I'm not saying it does. But there's a chart of quality vs affordability in healthcare and we're high in the quality and low in the affordability compared to most countries. If by "high quality" you mean "behind second and some third world nations in infant mortality, life expectancy, and access to basic health services", then yes absolutely America has better outcomes on some types of cancer, that's about it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
If you've traveled anywhere in your life, you'd know that America isn't the only country with poor areas. Somehow, healthcare outcomes are still lightyears better elsewhere. Unless of course you're saying we can just write off the plurality black south because...? For some reason Cubans can get better care for 90% less spend, but American Southerners can't. Are they just too black or too redneck to deserve care, would you say?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
It's quite the coincidence that the posters who have all the "facts" and are citing obscure journals and books for others to read were the ones most wrong about the last election
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Lockback posted:ACA isn't perfect, but your assertion that the only thing it did was screw people over is flatly wrong. I'd prefer a single-payer system, but the ACA was objectively an improvement in coverage and making purchasing insurance easier. I haven't seen this assertion made by anyone posting recently
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Yeah, the bill was designed to do that, though. It was also slightly better than what came before it, which you'd see the poster in question also said if you actually read his or her posts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Xae posted:UHC is the same way. It polls really well when it is vague. It polls really poorly when you start looking at potential policies. Utter bullshit, the majority of Americans support Medicare for All: http://pnhp.org/blog/2016/03/01/kaiser-poll-suggests-support-medicare-for-all-is-more-than-two-thirds/ e:f;b, and of course Xae moves the goalposts to "well the question wasn't forty pages long with extensive explanations of every single component!!" HappyHippo posted:This is the dumbest strategy. Voters may not pay much attention but they tend to blame who's in charge for their problems, justified or not. Intentionally making poo poo worse is going to backfire with both the crowd that pays attention and the crowd that doesn't. Yeah remember the debt ceiling fiasco and how that totally backfired on the GOP? call to action fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:what I said is what i meant. your ideas are garbage for the resons specified in that post. your attempts to paraphrase what i said into your garbage ideas are wrong. For a person determining whose ideas are garbage and whose aren't, you sure do post a lot on a dead gay comedy forum Also I've never really heard a great explanation as to why we need to raise taxes for UHC even though we already spend more *public* dollars on healthcare than any other country, let alone the massive private expenditure silence_kit posted:You have gone pretty far down the rabbit hole. I have no idea why you think he is defending drug advertising to consumers. He was pointing out a problem with an argument made by a source. Did you miss that whole part where they were discussing how marketing is a bigger expenditure than R&D? call to action fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Is there anywhere I can read about why we apparently need to raise taxes to fund UHC (per this thread) and yet we already spend more public-only dollars on healthcare per capita than any country in the world, tia
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:A lot of those savings come in ways that we would have a politically difficult time realizing, like capping doctor's salaries or firing everyone who currently works in the health insurance industry. Seems to sum it up perfectly, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:You don't seem to understand that Healthcare is a limited resource. lol, funny how the most resource rich country in the world has the biggest problems with this, isn't it
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that's the definition of a concern troll, right? Someone who hears "everyone should have access to healthcare" and responds with "but if they did, more tests would be administered, therefore more unneeded procedures would be performed, therefore people shouldn't have easy access to healthcare"?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
axeil posted:A huge problem is American patients almost demand some form of treatment when they see the doctor. I went to my ENT (ear/nose/throat) doctor a few months ago as I was convinced I had a sinus infection. Doctor takes a look and says "nah you're good" and immediately jumped into explaining why he wouldn't be ordering any follow-up tests or prescribing medicine or anything of the sort, despite my repeated insistance that I know "no sign of infection = no drugs". They have to reflexively explain like this because people can and will doctor shop for someone who gives them pills or a CT scan or whatever else because people cannot cope with "yes you are ill, no there is no recommended treatment at this time." Honestly, we should just start giving people true placebo prescriptions because it seems to be the only way to placate them. Isn't it strange that Americans, and only Americans apparently, "demand" treatment that just so happens to enrich their providers It's far more common to have doctors prescribe unnecessary tests than to have them launch into diatribes about how they don't want money
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Americans demand treatment because if you've missed work (unpaid) to see a doctor and are paying a thousand dollars for the privilege, you drat well want a result Fair point, taking the day off and paying a copay worth next day's pay kinda makes you want poo poo resolved
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Carrying water for people who try to kill innocent folks doesn't make you a good person, hth
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
That would be a DOT not a NHTSA regulation ::pushes up glasses::
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
It's interesting to see the distinction between the capitalists that do like single payer (those who actually believe in true entrepreneurship and social mobility) and the ones that don't (cronies who distort markets and shake everyone down for greater profits). gently caress ethics and people, I like money and single payer means more motherfucking money in more business owner's pockets
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
sympathy for McCain's cancer increasing...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
This whole ordeal is such a perfect example of why President Trump and his ability to gently caress poo poo up within the GOP while creating tons of internal strife is so, so preferable to the bland gay stompingness of Pence and his respectable healthcare grabbing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2017 14:06
|
|