Trump tastes failure as U.S. House healthcare bill collapses

[mogandave]

Russian roulette's a great game too.  Most of time, when the trigger is pulled, nothing happens.
But when that bullet is cancer, or lupus, or a host of other life threatening ailments, then you've got problems.
In the OECD, the honor of being the only nation where the leading cause of personal bankruptcy is medical cost belongs to the USA. A major cause of homelessness too.

Like I said, I never had any trouble getting healthcare. If you nothing it costs nothing, if you have something, buy insurance.

Never saw the attraction of Russian Roulette, you go ahead.

[mogandave]

I dunno...maybe because you're the person who espoused such a reprehensible, self-centered, inhumane position.

Why all the hate? You think socialized medicine is going to help more than plot hurts, I think it will hurt more than it helps. I don't hate you because your opinion differs from mine.

I get it, people want to feel good about themselves and they don't really care about the consequences. To them, it's the thought that counts.

[ilostmypassword]

33 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Like I said, I never had any trouble getting healthcare. If you nothing it costs nothing, if you have something, buy insurance.

Never saw the attraction of Russian Roulette, you go ahead.

 

If by "if you have something, buy insurance" you are referring to pre-existing conditions, then it's clear you don't understand how an insurance system works.  But maybe you're referring to something else?

[mogandave]

If by "if you have something, buy insurance" you are referring to pre-existing conditions, then it's clear you don't understand how an insurance system works.  But maybe you're referring to something else?

Yes, I was referring to something else, which I thought was made clear in the complete sentence. If you have money and or a home and materiel goods, buy insurance to protect the things you have, if you have nothing, don't worry about it.

I agree something needs to done for people caught between or without insurance and an "existing condition", but pretending to "sell" them insurance is silly.

Do you truly believe more government involvement is going to drive the cost down?

Ag

[JCauto]

38 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Why all the hate? You think socialized medicine is going to help more than plot hurts, I think it will hurt more than it helps. I don't hate you because your opinion differs from mine.

I get it, people want to feel good about themselves and they don't really care about the consequences. To them, it's the thought that counts.

 

 

No, it's deeper than that. We in favour of socialized medicine believe that it's better for society AND the economy. The fact is that your view of just repealing and not doing anything about it explicitly says "I don't mind that 24 million fellow citizens don't have health care and I don't care that they will therefore die earlier than they should and suffer far more than they should". That's pretty heartless. It also says "I don't comprehend that people dependent on employer-provided insurance have reduced opportunities for upward mobility and to take a chance and become entrepreneurs, and that people without sufficient health insurance go bankrupt and that this is the single largest reason for personal bankruptcies that throw people into poverty and keep them there". That shows a lack of understanding of the economy. Put them together and you perhaps understand why people get upset about flippant statements about important issues that discount people who are less fortunate than you are.

[mogandave]

 
No, it's deeper than that. We in favour of socialized medicine believe that it's better for society AND the economy. The fact is that your view of just repealing and not doing anything about it explicitly says "I don't mind that 24 million fellow citizens don't have health care and I don't care that they will therefore die earlier than they should and suffer far more than they should". That's pretty heartless. It also says "I don't comprehend that people dependent on employer-provided insurance have reduced opportunities for upward mobility and to take a chance and become entrepreneurs, and that people without sufficient health insurance go bankrupt and that this is the single largest reason for personal bankruptcies that throw people into poverty and keep them there". That shows a lack of understanding of the economy. Put them together and you perhaps understand why people get upset about flippant statements about important issues that discount people who are less fortunate than you are.

Yes, it's always "deeper" when it's your position.

We who are against socialized medicine believe it's worse for society and the economy. I think putting people under the care of the government is pretty heartless.

I'm not for doing nothing, I'm for getting rid of it. Why do you not care about the millions of people whose insurance turned to crap? Why do you not care about the millions of people that got their hours cut back to part time? Why do you not care about all the working families that are paying thousands a year more for health care?

Where are you from? Where I come from we have plenty of entrepreneurs and lots of opportunity, and have had for a long time without the ACA and socialized medicine.

We also enjoy a high standard of living, and live longer than most any other industrialized nation, when you account for deaths related to recreational and industrial accidents.

[JCauto]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Yes, it's always "deeper" when it's your position.

We who are against socialized medicine believe it's worse for society and the economy. I think putting people under the care of the government is pretty heartless.

I'm not for doing nothing, I'm for getting rid of it. Why do you not care about the millions of people whose insurance turned to crap? Why do you not care about the millions of people that got their hours cut back to part time? Why do you not care about all the working families that are paying thousands a year more for health care?

Where are you from? Where I come from we have plenty of entrepreneurs and lots of opportunity, and have had for a long time without the ACA and socialized medicine.

We also enjoy a high standard of living, and live longer than most any other industrialized nation, when you account for deaths related to recreational and industrial accidents.

 

 

You characterized my position incorrectly so I provided you with some depth. You have also done so with yours, so thanks for that. I find it particularly frustrating when people don't attempt to argue their positions and instead just toss out red herrings and ad hominems, which as you know is the general way these debates go on the internet.

 

In regard to your second point, about doing nothing, in my opinion leaving 14-24 million without health care is a significantly worse situation than making those who have it more expensive or lower quality. You feel otherwise, but you haven't provided any remedy for those people. What is it they're supposed to do, just die? Instead they end up with all the negative consequences before they get to the point where they end up in the emergency room uninsured at which point all the costs are then shifted back onto you, the taxpayer, anyway. So that's a poor economic choice if your major concern is the costs for those people ending up on your plate - it happens anyway, so you should be in favour of reducing those costs. The best way is to ensure they get decent low-cost preventive care as early as possible. Without any insurance, that won't happen. I also note that you didn't address the economic point I made in regard to personal bankruptcies and lack of workplace mobility and incentives for entrepreneurship.

I'm from Canada, where we have managed to use the power of government and universal healthcare enrollment for example to negotiate far lower costs with Big Pharma for access to the same medicine you get in the States but for a fraction of the cost. This was something Trump campaigned on as well, and that he promised to resolve. Yet, amazingly, there was nothing - nada, zip, zilch, bupkis - in their proposed healthcare plan that did that despite his claims of great dealmaking prowess and promises to hold Big Pharma to account. Why? Well, when the private sector DISTORTS the market, then the capitalist solution does not provide the greater good. I personally am an entrepreneur so have a pretty reasonable understanding of how the private sector economy functions. If the private sector could do a better job as they inevitably claim they can, then they would already have done so. Instead they've just taken the easy way out and captured their congressmen to do their dirty work for them and game the system.

Standards of living are subjective, but Canada places above the USA regularly whenever anyone attempts to do so. I don't believe your claims of life longevity withstand serious analysis. You can't just dismiss "industrial accidents" as incidental - both health care and workplace safety standards come into play here, and our "socialized" countries have those standards. And I'd be pretty surprised if USA recreational deaths are higher than elsewhere. Why would that be the case?

[ilostmypassword]

57 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Yes, I was referring to something else, which I thought was made clear in the complete sentence. If you have money and or a home and materiel goods, buy insurance to protect the things you have, if you have nothing, don't worry about it.

I agree something needs to done for people caught between or without insurance and an "existing condition", but pretending to "sell" them insurance is silly.

Do you truly believe more government involvement is going to drive the cost down?

Ag

 

What do you mean by "pretending to 'sell' them insurance"?

And as for government driving costs down...the USA has the most expensive medical system as a percentage of GDP in the world. And even with all that expenditure, it doesn't manage to insure all its citizens unlike other nations which have either single payer or very strong government regulation.

[stevenl]

Yes, I was referring to something else, which I thought was made clear in the complete sentence. If you have money and or a home and materiel goods, buy insurance to protect the things you have, if you have nothing, don't worry about it.

I agree something needs to done for people caught between or without insurance and an "existing condition", but pretending to "sell" them insurance is silly.

Do you truly believe more government involvement is going to drive the cost down?

Ag

So you just implied everybody needs health insurance.

sent using Tapatalk

[tuktuktuk]

10 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

It's not the modern standard of care that is unaffordable. It's only the care in the US that is so crazy expensive. Identical procedures or medications in other developed countries cost a fraction of those in the US. The main reason; hospital and insurance monopolies and their influence on politics. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/072116/us-healthcare-costs-compared-other-countries.asp

I don't see it quite that way.  Sure there's always some greed at work, but without the profit motive we'd have nothing.  We don't want doctors and hospitals that are paid like teachers and auto mechanics.  Insurance companies are just going along for the ride.  We enabled them.  You're just placing a bet that says your health will be worse than what your premiums represent.  Just like Vegas, they win or they wouldn't exist.  For most of us our health is good enough that we'd be better off without insurance.  What started the spiral was managed care.  Insurance companies were put in the position of trying to reduce the overall costs.  The approach was to negotiate.  Hospitals doubled their prices so they could be cut in two and everybody thought it was a win.  The problem is that somewhere along that road we lost track of cost, price and value.  I don't know if there's a way back, but letting government fix it has got to be the worst of all worlds.

[mogandave]

What do you mean by "pretending to 'sell' them insurance"?
And as for government driving costs down...the USA has the most expensive medical system as a percentage of GDP in the world. And even with all that expenditure, it doesn't manage to insure all its citizens unlike other nations which have either single payer or very strong government regulation.

I believe you told me in an earlier post that I did not understand insurance if I thought people with pre-existing conditions should buy it.

My position (which I think you agree with) is that when someone with a pre-existing condition is sold medical insurance that covered the condition, it is actually subsidized care sold under the guise of insurance.

It is your position that the US does not have strong regulations on the medical industry?

[mogandave]

So you just implied everybody needs health insurance.

sent using Tapatalk

Please try to follow along, I implied no such thing.

[Traveler19491]

9 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Why all the hate? You think socialized medicine is going to help more than plot hurts, I think it will hurt more than it helps. I don't hate you because your opinion differs from mine.

I get it, people want to feel good about themselves and they don't really care about the consequences. To them, it's the thought that counts.

 

 

Actually, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "feeling good" about myself, or with "hate", but everything to do with your desire to deny access to health care that the ACA (or any form of socialized medicine provides) to those unable to afford it. Your "me first" attitude is what is reprehensible. You are most likely a decent person in other aspects, but this one is what marks you.  To your point about socialized medicine helping more than it hurts, Federal and state studies going back as far as 1991 have shown that single-payer would cost considerably less than what exists now (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost), but taking the profit motive out of medicine is anathema to Republicans, who love to label it "socialist" (like we don't already have a ton of "socialist" programs already...Medicare, Social Security, VA, schools, military, roads, libraries, first-responders, etc.). It appears that, like so many other "conservatives", you have bought into the shallow arguments against single-payer without really doing any deep research. The facts don't support the right's objections. Yes, there would be an increase in taxes to pay for such, but the offset from not having to pay premiums, deductibles, or co-pays would way more than make up for such taxes. The savings realized from not having entire departments dedicated to denying claims, not shelling out massive CEO/executive bonuses, and duplications of administration would shave billions off of costs. In actuality, there are no legitimate objections to the effectiveness of single-payer as opposed to for-profit, especially when you consider that every other major industrialized nation on earth, save the US, uses single-payer, and none have suffered for doing so. But America does suffer for using for-profit.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Traveler19491 said:

Actually, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "feeling good" about myself, or with "hate", but everything to do with your desire to deny access to health care that the ACA (or any form of socialized medicine provides) to those unable to afford it. Your "me first" attitude is what is reprehensible. You are most likely a decent person in other aspects, but this one is what marks you.  To your point about socialized medicine helping more than it hurts, Federal and state studies going back as far as 1991 have shown that single-payer would cost considerably less than what exists now (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost), but taking the profit motive out of medicine is anathema to Republicans, who love to label it "socialist" (like we don't already have a ton of "socialist" programs already...Medicare, Social Security, VA, schools, military, roads, libraries, first-responders, etc.). It appears that, like so many other "conservatives", you have bought into the shallow arguments against single-payer without really doing any deep research. The facts don't support the right's objections. Yes, there would be an increase in taxes to pay for such, but the offset from not having to pay premiums, deductibles, or co-pays would way more than make up for such taxes. The savings realized from not having entire departments dedicated to denying claims, not shelling out massive CEO/executive bonuses, and duplications of administration would shave billions off of costs. In actuality, there are no legitimate objections to the effectiveness of single-payer as opposed to for-profit, especially when you consider that every other major industrialized nation on earth, save the US, uses single-payer, and none have suffered for doing so. But America does suffer for using for-profit.

"In actuality, there are no legitimate objections to the effectiveness of single-payer as opposed to for-profit, especially when you consider that every other major industrialized nation on earth, save the US, uses single-payer, and none have suffered for doing so. But America does suffer for using for-profit."

Not true. Japan for one uses a multipayer system with private insurers But it is very tightly regulated including fees that doctors can charge.  Japan's health expenditures run to 8.5 percent of GDP and that covers everyone. In the USA I think it's now 19 percent and it doesn't cover everyone.

Germany also has a multi-payer system. Again, though, the government very strongly regulates insurance.

[stevenl]

44 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Please try to follow along, I implied no such thing.

 

Of course you did: " If you have money and or a home and materiel goods, buy insurance to protect the things you have, if you have nothing, don't worry about it. "

 

We're looking at health insurance, to protect what we all have.

[boomerangutang]

Maybe this is nuts, but how about silver / gold / platinum health coverages?

 

In other words, a person/family can opt for basic care and pay a lower amount

.....or medium care and pay more,

.....or high quality, with all the whistles and bells, and pay higher.

 

To give a comparison of health care costs:  tuktuktuk mentioned above that a fractured lower arm costs an injured American  $150k.   Four years ago, I had an accident where I fractured both wrists and broke a heel bone.  At a Thai hospital (not the cheapest one in town) my repair cost was Bt.160k.  That's about 30 times cheaper than the US.  

 

[mogandave]

Of course you did: " If you have money and or a home and materiel goods, buy insurance to protect the things you have, if you have nothing, don't worry about it. "
 
We're looking at health insurance, to protect what we all have.

So everyone in the US has money and or a home and materiel goods?

[mogandave]

Actually, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "feeling good" about myself, or with "hate", but everything to do with your desire to deny access to health care that the ACA (or any form of socialized medicine provides) to those unable to afford it. Your "me first" attitude is what is reprehensible. You are most likely a decent person in other aspects, but this one is what marks you.  To your point about socialized medicine helping more than it hurts, Federal and state studies going back as far as 1991 have shown that single-payer would cost considerably less than what exists now (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost), but taking the profit motive out of medicine is anathema to Republicans, who love to label it "socialist" (like we don't already have a ton of "socialist" programs already...Medicare, Social Security, VA, schools, military, roads, libraries, first-responders, etc.). It appears that, like so many other "conservatives", you have bought into the shallow arguments against single-payer without really doing any deep research. The facts don't support the right's objections. Yes, there would be an increase in taxes to pay for such, but the offset from not having to pay premiums, deductibles, or co-pays would way more than make up for such taxes. The savings realized from not having entire departments dedicated to denying claims, not shelling out massive CEO/executive bonuses, and duplications of administration would shave billions off of costs. In actuality, there are no legitimate objections to the effectiveness of single-payer as opposed to for-profit, especially when you consider that every other major industrialized nation on earth, save the US, uses single-payer, and none have suffered for doing so. But America does suffer for using for-profit.

Sounds like hate to me.

Be that as it may, you're lying when you say I want to deny health care, I do not.

Was one of those "studies" sited when my President promised my healthcare cost would be reduced by $2,500 a year?

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I believe you told me in an earlier post that I did not understand insurance if I thought people with pre-existing conditions should buy it.

My position (which I think you agree with) is that when someone with a pre-existing condition is sold medical insurance that covered the condition, it is actually subsidized care sold under the guise of insurance.

It is your position that the US does not have strong regulations on the medical industry?
 

 

You believe wrong., People with pre-existing conditions used not to be able to buy insurance except possible at such exorbitant rates that they couldn't afford it.

 

Do you realize that this is how private employer insurance works? If someone has a pre-existing condition and goes to work for an employer, they will get covered on the same terms as everyone else. In effect, healthy workers are subsidizing unhealthy workers. And younger workers are subsidizing older workers.

 

And it is my  position that insurance industry before Obamacare had very weak regulation. They sold junk policies and had huge departments devoted to trying to disallow claims based on technicalities.  Both these practices are now outlawed under Obamacare.

[thaibeachlovers]

Another thread has got taken over by the Trump haters, each trying to prove how terrible Trump is. However, if the non Trump haters are like me, they'll be leaving this thread to let the anti Tumpers talk to each other. It does get boring, thread after thread being taken over by hundreds of posts just saying the same things over and over, ad nauseam.

Bye by from me.

[Grubster]

16 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

I don't dispute the possibility that an occasional Canadian tourist broke her leg while in NH and needed urgent care.  But you said that NH hospitals are "full of Canadians".  You also said this was firsthand knowledge, meaning that you personally have taken tours of the various hospitals in NH and, just by walking around the hospital you somehow got an accurate census of the nationality of the patients staying at said hospitals.  I wonder if you know just how loony-toons this sounds.  How can one waltz into a hospital and gather information like that?  Did you walk into each room and look at their charts, looking for Canadian names?  Do they put a maple leaf on the doors that have Canadian patients?

 

 

That's great, then you're done wasting your time and mine.

I have gone to Canada at least thirty times fishing and hunting, I made it a point to ask at every gas station, store, lodge,etc. how they like the health care plan there. I never had one say they didn't like it, maybe some Canadians can refute that here I don't know.

[mogandave]

 
And it is my  position that insurance industry before Obamacare had very weak regulation. They sold junk policies and had huge departments devoted to trying to disallow claims based on technicalities.  Both these practices are now outlawed under Obamacare.

My question was in regard to the US regulation of health care, not insurance.

My insurance paid out better before the ACA, what about yours?

I have BCBS of I, what do you have?

I'm from So Cal, you?

[Grubster]

1 hour ago, Traveler19491 said:

Actually, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "feeling good" about myself, or with "hate", but everything to do with your desire to deny access to health care that the ACA (or any form of socialized medicine provides) to those unable to afford it. Your "me first" attitude is what is reprehensible. You are most likely a decent person in other aspects, but this one is what marks you.  To your point about socialized medicine helping more than it hurts, Federal and state studies going back as far as 1991 have shown that single-payer would cost considerably less than what exists now (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost), but taking the profit motive out of medicine is anathema to Republicans, who love to label it "socialist" (like we don't already have a ton of "socialist" programs already...Medicare, Social Security, VA, schools, military, roads, libraries, first-responders, etc.). It appears that, like so many other "conservatives", you have bought into the shallow arguments against single-payer without really doing any deep research. The facts don't support the right's objections. Yes, there would be an increase in taxes to pay for such, but the offset from not having to pay premiums, deductibles, or co-pays would way more than make up for such taxes. The savings realized from not having entire departments dedicated to denying claims, not shelling out massive CEO/executive bonuses, and duplications of administration would shave billions off of costs. In actuality, there are no legitimate objections to the effectiveness of single-payer as opposed to for-profit, especially when you consider that every other major industrialized nation on earth, save the US, uses single-payer, and none have suffered for doing so. But America does suffer for using for-profit.

I am in the VA system which rightfully doesn't cover me here. That is a single payer system that works great for a tenth of the cost of outside care, I was in the hospital there after a heart attack and asked my nurse if he liked the VA better than outside. He said it pays a little less but yes he loves it as he only has to take care of his patients rather than studying insurance policies to see if they are covered for this and that and which drugs they don't allow. He said him nor the doctors have to constantly worry of law suits either as their are few to none and would require extreme negligence. Don't listen to the meatheads that say VA care is no good, When I have an appointment my doctor calls me in within 15 minutes of it sometimes Early if I am there yet. Your Doctor at the VA will tell you that if you have an issue that needs attention [ sudden illness, broken bone, bad cut, etc.] just go to the emergency room, that is what it is for, otherwise he would have to back up all appointments for that day as they do on the outside. This system is brilliant and all Americans should have it, end of story.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

So everyone in the US has money and or a home and materiel goods?

 

Everyone in the US has health worth protecting.

[ajarngreg]

They should point their fingers at each other......

[mogandave]

Everyone in the US has health worth protecting.

So people in poor health should try to protect it?

I would think the would want to improve it.

You lied about what I said, why not just admit it?

[stevenl]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

So people in poor health should try to protect it?

I would think the would want to improve it.

You lied about what I said, why not just admit it?

 

 

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

So people in poor health should try to protect it?

I would think the would want to improve it.

You lied about what I said, why not just admit it?

 

Au contraire, you're trying to wiggle your way out of it.

[mogandave]

I am in the VA system which rightfully doesn't cover me here. That is a single payer system that works great for a tenth of the cost of outside care, I was in the hospital there after a heart attack and asked my nurse if he liked the VA better than outside. He said it pays a little less but yes he loves it as he only has to take care of his patients rather than studying insurance policies to see if they are covered for this and that and which drugs they don't allow. He said him nor the doctors have to constantly worry of law suits either as their are few to none and would require extreme negligence. Don't listen to the meatheads that say VA care is no good, When I have an appointment my doctor calls me in within 15 minutes of it sometimes Early if I am there yet. Your Doctor at the VA will tell you that if you have an issue that needs attention [ sudden illness, broken bone, bad cut, etc.] just go to the emergency room, that is what it is for, otherwise he would have to back up all appointments for that day as they do on the outside. This system is brilliant and all Americans should have it, end of story.

Yeah, my dad used the VA in Long Beach, CA. I used to ride him back and forth.

[mogandave]

Au contraire, you're trying to wiggle your way out of it.

Are you baiting me? What I wrote is clear, as was your response. Read and learn, it's FUNdamental.

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Are you baiting me? What I wrote is clear, as was your response. Read and learn, it's FUNdamental.

Read and understand I would be my recommendation to you.

 

Out.