The Next President is...

[jazzdude]

I read this as you want universal healthcare, but are unable/unwilling to advocate the specific way in which to do it.  Who doesn't want healthcare for everyone? Anyone?
The difference is, some people at least attempt the logical thought experiment as to how we get from where we are, to where we'd like to be, and realize the math doesn't work when you simply demand our "rich" government pay for it. You can't make 2+2=7. Others just demand things. You might demand you want your car to fly, tomorrow. Are you sure? I can definitely make your car fly tomorrow, but how do you think it will end? The specific way in which we provide universal health care is important.

Well put.

[gearhog]

3 minutes ago, slackline said:

You're ignoring the point. Car insurance is mandatory, and you can face repercussions/fines/penalties for not having it. Just because it doesn't come out of your paycheck upon receipt, doesn't change the law. Is that somehow unconstitutional?

I don't think you understand the point. Is it "mandatory"? If it were in the same way you advocate for universal healthcare, why do millions of Americans not have car insurance? If you earn enough to purchase a car, smart enough to pass a driving test, skilled enough to get licensed, and hurl 3000lbs of steel down the highway putting other people, including myself,  and other people's property at risk of death and damage, I'd like to know that I'd get compensated if I also choose to do the same and you make a mistake. It's a choice for both of us.

 

[Sim]

23 hours ago, drewpey said:

A millionaire who lies repeatedly when it's convenient to him

 

[slackline]

I don't think you understand the point. Is it "mandatory"? If it were in the same way you advocate for universal healthcare, why do millions of Americans not have car insurance? If you earn enough to purchase a car, smart enough to pass a driving test, skilled enough to get licensed, and hurl 3000lbs of steel down the highway putting other people, including myself,  and other people's property at risk of death and damage, I'd like to know that I'd get compensated if I also choose to do the same and you make a mistake. It's a choice for both of us.
 

Once again, you’re missing the point, but it’s clear you’re unwilling to see anything other than your own side, so I’ll just stop... How on earth do you not see the similarities?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

Thanks for posting this. I’ll try to give it a watch this afternoon.

Hey Guardian, this is an example of moving things forward, not just saying, “you’re wrong and your argument is stupid” because you somehow think you’re right. You’re one of the main guys I was referring to who thinks his poop doesn’t stink. You, I guess, have a copyright on being correct...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nope. I just actually argue with facts and reason and not personal attacks and made up things. My poop absolutely stinks. I just happen to be able to call out when others arguments don’t make sense.

[Guardian]

Your response above does not answer the question. At all. Also, your comments about the Good, Accessible, and Cheap isn’t a catch-all. Also, there’s a chasm between accessible and not accessible and cheap and expensive.

Why is affordable so offensive to you? You are in a job where we have to stay healthy, yet there’s tons of fatties in the military. Every excuse you can think of exists. I happen to agree with you that people should do a much better job of taking care of themselves, but I don’t think they should be financially ruined if they didn’t.

Please, tell me why my question about it being unattainable isn’t good. This is more of “Guardian deciding what is legit and what isn’t” that I mentioned earlier. Somehow you think you’re the only one making valid statements/questions.

I think you’re taking a wildly slippery slope here talking about forcing you to pay for other people’s healthcare. I’m going to take a page out of your book and simply say, “your point isn’t good, you’re using half truths in a non logical way and it hurts your point.” Why? Because I said so. That’s apparently all the validation you need, so I’m going to do the same.

You’re right, it’s not in the constitution, but our founders certainly believed in the pursuit of happiness as it was in the Declaration of Independence. “Unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Kind of a big deal, give it a read. There’s a good catch all that should allow our government to do better to find a way to take care of our people.

That’s all most of us are getting after in here, not advocating for a specific way to do it, but we maintain that the richest country in the world ought to be able to do a better job at taking care of its people than we do.

Stop blaming it on unhealthy fatties as well! There’s hundreds of thousands in this country that lost the lottery, and just have crappy health. No amount of eating right or exercise will change their health issues. Shouldn’t we help them without bankrupting them?

I totally recognize my arguments are not infallible, but man, you gotta stop acting as if yours are...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Already told you. When something becomes attainable to all it stops being good. To make it attainable it isn’t going to be as good by the very nature of economics. It physically can not be. If a really really really good doctor is forced to see more people and it has to be affordable to all, that doctor isn’t going to want to practice. He wants to make money for his specialty. (How bad is available to all military on base health care? It’s cheap and not good and it’s more often than not, unavailable on a quick timeline). Just study Canada’s system. The wait for simple ailments is absurdly long. Canada’s system is trash. So instead of argue you revert to personal attacks? Sure seems like you want to debate policy. (That’s sarcasm). Notice how I respond with facts and reason instead of personal attacks?

[lloyd christmas]

Imagine the US government running the health care system!!!   Haha!  What is the worst that could happen???  The damn government can't even maintain our roads...  Open up the free market and let it loose on our health care system.  

[Guardian]

How many people would you say are over BMI in this country compared to people with non obesity related pre existing conditions? And there are lots of insurance options out there for people with pre existing conditions right now. People who say they aren’t telling you the truth.

I gotta stop acting like my arguments are infallible? Try to debunk them and I will readily admit it. So far you can’t and just return to personal attacks. That’s not debating.

[gearhog]

Just now, slackline said:

Once again, you’re missing the point, but it’s clear you’re unwilling to see anything other than your own side, so I’ll just stop... How on earth do you not see the similarities?
 

Brother, I'm not trying to shut you down, nor am I completely immovable in my opinion. In the same way you must feel about me, I simply cannot understand how one can believe the issues are similar. My wife and I rented a base model Mustang the other day. We were passed by a GT500 on the highway. My wife asks "What's the difference? Looks the same to me".

Let's open the hood:

Car Insurance: Not federally mandated. You aren't required to purchase it unless you own a vehicle and operate it on public roads. You can opt out. Requires a minimal demonstration of knowledge and skill. Higher risk = higher premiums. The risks you assume on the road affects others.

Universal Healthcare: Federally mandated. You are required to purchase it because you are alive. You can't opt out. No prerequisites for coverage. Same costs for all risk categories. The risks you assume affects only your health.

How much sense does it make to point to a private for-profit industry, declare what a successful and beneficial service it provides to the public, and then say it's a model for government run healthcare?

As for cancer, it's a terrible thing. If we live long enough, 100% of us will get it. I'm not calling you out, nor am I asking how you contribute: but there is absolutely nothing that prevents someone from helping a cancer patient avoid bankruptcy in the current system. I always wonder, but never ask, how much universal healthcare advocates touting compassion contribute themselves before making demands of others.

[Guardian]

Best can mean a lot of things to different people, and that's something that needs to be understood going into this discussion. If you can't see that there may be other definitions of what best means regarding healthcare, then any debate is meaningless.

And you can't separate insurance from this discussion, so long as healthcare costs more than people can pay out of pocket for. That ignores 2 of the points you made: accessiblility and cost (cheap).

Have you been following the discussions on changes in military healthcare? Dependents are starting to get pushed off base as MTFs downsize. However, even though they have decent insurance, people have found it challenging to find off base PCMs willing to take on new patients. Premiums for retiree Tricare are creeping up (though still way below open market prices), and the new-ish Tricare for Life adds additional cost on top of that (due to having to sign up/pay for Medicare).

Defense isn't cheap. Was what we spent in Afghanistan worth it? Did that campaign make us stronger as a nation, or further essential national goals worth the price we paid? There are many on the left that say the defense budget is theft as well. Like you said, that money has to come from somewhere.

Healthcare would be an investment in our society. Access to routine and preventative care should help more people be productive members of society. The question is how much to invest and what level of care to provide.

Best means the same to everyone. Accessible and high quality.

Dude. You are completely missing my point. If I want to make a statement and explain exactly what I mean in saying it, you can’t tell me that is wrong. If you want to say I understand how you are defining health care for the context of your statement to mean medical care and not discussing insurance on that statement then you can. You can’t tell me that when I say this is an apple and I’m talking about just apples not all round fruit that I’m wrong for making a statement about apples. Your logic doesn’t follow.

Health care and military protection aren’t both examples of socialist programs. You can’t compare them. Apples to oranges brah.

You’re missing the point. Even if it is an investment in our society, you shouldn’t force it on those who don’t want it. It’s theft and immoral.

[Guardian]

Once again, you’re missing the point, but it’s clear you’re unwilling to see anything other than your own side, so I’ll just stop... How on earth do you not see the similarities?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maybe your analogy doesn’t make sense to him. Try to argue in a different manner or explain why treasure should be taken from those who have to give to those who don’t have it, didn’t work for it, or don’t respect it.

[Negatory]

10 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

Imagine the US government running the health care system!!!   Haha!  What is the worst that could happen???  The damn government can't even maintain our roads...  Open up the free market and let it loose on our health care system.  

You guys are kinda falling into a trap with this argument, as I would say the vast majority of Americans are very thankful and happy with at least the interstate highway system. Arguing about poorly maintained city or state roads isn’t the point when I am 100% sure I can drive safely from New York to Washington with no fees. And that’s thanks to a federal spending program.

And it was an example of something the government opened up for everyone to use equally as long as you have a drivers license. If you try to argue this point, I think you’re gonna lose people.

Now if you are arguing that healthcare is different in that some people are unnecessary drains, that’s reasonable. Maybe healthcare cost should correspond to factors in your control (smoking, weight gain/loss with no underlying condition, drug usage)? It shouldn’t be an argument for no healthcare at all, though, in my opinion.

The point is that it is absolutely possible to provide a service for the benefit of all effectively. Many other countries have actually demonstrated it, so this argument kind of falls flat in the new more global world where we can compare ourselves to everyone else.

[Negatory]

4 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Maybe your analogy doesn’t make sense to him. Try to argue in a different manner or explain why treasure should be taken from those who have to give to those who don’t have it, didn’t work for it, or don’t respect it.

This is an extreme viewpoint. If your argument is that “treasure” should never be taken from someone to benefit someone else, I think you’re gonna have a tough time justifying the US military.

[gearhog]

3 minutes ago, Negatory said:

This is an extreme viewpoint. If your argument is that “treasure” should never be taken from someone to benefit someone else, I think you’re gonna have a tough time justifying the US military.

Now this... is a take I'd be excited to hear more about. Is there any way you could explain a little more?

[TreeA10]

I think the free market would result in a better outcome for healthcare for everyone.  Right now, it's difficult for the consumer to actually influence the healthcare market since most costs are hidden.  You take your car in for repairs, you get an estimate before you pull the trigger.  If you are buying an air conditioner, you can shop around.  I'm sure many of the folks not on active duty on this website have been to the doc, had some medical procedure done, and then start getting bills you weren't aware were coming.  Oh, I'm sorry, your insurance doesn't cover "out of network" lab work so you have to pay more for lab work that you didn't even know about or have a choice where it was sent.  Or an anesthesiologist that is separate charges from your doc.

My personal favorite was an ankle that I thought I broke but only sprained.  I limped into the ER, got some x-rays, told it was sprained, wrapped it, and I was limping my way out when the nurse kept insisting I get some crutches.  I finally relented and accepted the crutches.  My insurance was billed $700 for those crutches.  (I just searched Amazon for crutches and found them for $21.07)  Anyway, improve transparency in medical costs and I think that would be an option I'd be on board for.

[lloyd christmas]

7 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Arguing about poorly maintained city or state roads isn’t the point 

Yes it is.  Our country's infrastructure is an embarrassment.  And is not due to a lack of funding.  The same would be said if the gov ran our health care system.  

[slackline]

Brother, I'm not trying to shut you down, nor am I completely immovable in my opinion. In the same way you must feel about me, I simply cannot understand how one can believe the issues are similar. My wife and I rented a base model Mustang the other day. We were passed by a GT500 on the highway. My wife asks "What's the difference? Looks the same to me".
Let's open the hood:
Car Insurance: Not federally mandated. You aren't required to purchase it unless you own a vehicle and operate it on public roads. You can opt out. Requires a minimal demonstration of knowledge and skill. Higher risk = higher premiums. The risks you assume on the road affects others.
Universal Healthcare: Federally mandated. You are required to purchase it because you are alive. You can't opt out. No prerequisites for coverage. Same costs for all risk categories. The risks you assume affects only your health.
How much sense does it make to point to a private for-profit industry, declare what a successful and beneficial service it provides to the public, and then say it's a model for government run healthcare?
As for cancer, it's a terrible thing. If we live long enough, 100% of us will get it. I'm not calling you out, nor am I asking how you contribute: but there is absolutely nothing that prevents someone from helping a cancer patient avoid bankruptcy in the current system. I always wonder, but never ask, how much universal healthcare advocates touting compassion contribute themselves before making demands of others.

I’ll say it one more time. I’m not advocating for universal healthcare...

What I am saying is that what we have right now is far from the best in the world. It is far from beneficial to most, let alone all people. We need to discuss the ways to make it accessible to everyone. Simply opening the market 100% (I see the attraction here for sure) isn’t going to fix it. People keep saying it is, but how?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[slackline]

Already told you. When something becomes attainable to all it stops being good. To make it attainable it isn’t going to be as good by the very nature of economics. It physically can not be. If a really really really good doctor is forced to see more people and it has to be affordable to all, that doctor isn’t going to want to practice. He wants to make money for his specialty. (How bad is available to all military on base health care? It’s cheap and not good and it’s more often than not, unavailable on a quick timeline). Just study Canada’s system. The wait for simple ailments is absurdly long. Canada’s system is trash. So instead of argue you revert to personal attacks? Sure seems like you want to debate policy. (That’s sarcasm). Notice how I respond with facts and reason instead of personal attacks?

Nothing I’ve said is a personal attack. I might be a little salty in my response, but I have not attacked anyone. I’ve attacked opinions because you keep saying you provide facts, but you’re simply providing opinions disguised as facts.

There is a healthy compromise in here somewhere. I don’t believe your “good, cheap and accessible” theory applies here. If we made more accessible while keeping the job of medical provider attractive there is no reason you cannot have all three. You have yet to prove that you cannot.

Also, you have yet to answer the “why is America’s healthcare system the best in the world” question. What qualifies that statement?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

This is an extreme viewpoint. If your argument is that “treasure” should never be taken from someone to benefit someone else, I think you’re gonna have a tough time justifying the US military.

Well since you went down the path of guessing what I was saying and saying something I didn’t, let’s go there.

Show me how not having healthcare for all in our nations history has cost us our independence and way of life. The difference is not having healthcare doesn’t cause our entire nation and way of life to cease. It doesn’t take away our singularly unique freedoms of speech and press. It doesn’t cause us to cease being the best nation in the world.

However making our health care system look like Canada’s hurts the entire world not just our country. The medical system and unique amazing medical advancements are very largely unique to us. Where do the people who absolutely need medical care but can’t wait in the absurdly long waits that Canada’s medical system has? They come to America!

[gearhog]

3 minutes ago, slackline said:

I’ll say it one more time. I’m not advocating for universal healthcare...

What I am saying is that what we have right now is far from the best in the world. It is far from beneficial to most, let alone all people. We need to discuss the ways to make it accessible to everyone. Simply opening the market 100% (I see the attraction here for sure) isn’t going to fix it. People keep saying it is, but how?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Roger, no problem. Only two questions: What is the best in the world? Do you believe there a way to make it accessible that is also feasible and sustainable?

[slackline]

I think the free market would result in a better outcome for healthcare for everyone.  Right now, it's difficult for the consumer to actually influence the healthcare market since most costs are hidden.  You take your car in for repairs, you get an estimate before you pull the trigger.  If you are buying an air conditioner, you can shop around.  I'm sure many of the folks not on active duty on this website have been to the doc, had some medical procedure done, and then start getting bills you weren't aware were coming.  Oh, I'm sorry, your insurance doesn't cover "out of network" lab work so you have to pay more for lab work that you didn't even know about or have a choice where it was sent.  Or an anesthesiologist that is separate charges from your doc.
My personal favorite was an ankle that I thought I broke but only sprained.  I limped into the ER, got some x-rays, told it was sprained, wrapped it, and I was limping my way out when the nurse kept insisting I get some crutches.  I finally relented and accepted the crutches.  My insurance was billed $700 for those crutches.  (I just searched Amazon for crutches and found them for $21.07)  Anyway, improve transparency in medical costs and I think that would be an option I'd be on board for.

100% beneficial discussion! Fixing this garbage would go a long way in making healthcare affordable, good and accessible. While I’m no expert in healthcare, I’m sure there are tons of things like this that would help fix our problems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

Nothing I’ve said is a personal attack. I might be a little salty in my response, but I have not attacked anyone. I’ve attacked opinions because you keep saying you provide facts, but you’re simply providing opinions disguised as facts.

There is a healthy compromise in here somewhere. I don’t believe your “good, cheap and accessible” theory applies here. If we made more accessible while keeping the job of medical provider attractive there is no reason you cannot have all three. You have yet to prove that you cannot.

Also, you have yet to answer the “why is America’s healthcare system the best in the world” question. What qualifies that statement?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’ve already explained why it’s the best. We have the most medically advanced health care which provides a sustainment of life. Even though our society is very very unhealthy and usually by its own choices. Our medical care makes up for that.

And you don’t have to wait. Anyone can go to the ER at any time for almost anything. That’s not really true of socialist healthcare systems.

Opinions disguised as facts? You’re projecting. I don’t see where you have provided facts at all. In fact you take things out of context and make it a half truth then base a narrative on it. Very disingenuous.

[Negatory]

5 minutes ago, Guardian said:

However making our health care system look like Canada’s hurts the entire world not just our country. The medical system and unique amazing medical advancements are very largely unique to us. Where do the people who absolutely need medical care but can’t wait in the absurdly long waits that Canada’s medical system has? They come to America!

That’s a pretty exaggerated talking point:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/trumps-claim-about-canadians-traveling-to-the-united-states-for-medical-care/%3foutputType=amp

Edited October 20, 2020 by Negatory

[Prozac]

The Interstate highway system is an excellent example. No where in the constitution does it say Americans are entitled to a safe and efficient nationwide transportation system. In fact, the founders could not possibly have predicted that there would ever be a need for such a system. That’s kind of the point. As the nation developed industrially and technologically, we collectively decided that a national highway system would be beneficial to the country as a whole. Tax dollars paid for it, and surely there were naysayers who insisted they would never use it and asked why their hard earned dollars should go to such a system. It’s called living in a modern, civilized society. When the society as a whole decides that there is an indispensable need, everybody gets to pitch in a little whether they like it or not. There are any number of examples of federally funded projects not specified by the constitution. How about the national power grid? The CDC? NASA? Hell, even a standing army, which the founders were dead set against, became something which we eventually discovered was impossible to do without. The point is, when we as a society decide that the benefits of having something outweigh the costs, the collective wins out and there will always be certain individuals who disagree. That may sound like big bad socialism, but it’s nothing new. And it’s the process we’re going through right now regarding healthcare. The collective has decided that the benefit outweighs the cost. This is why the Republican mantra is “repeal and replace” vs just “repeal”. Because they know the tide has turned and the majority of the public wants their government involved in the solution. IMO the battle over whether there should be some sort of national healthcare system is over and the discussion should be about what we want that system to look like. I agree that the ACA has some serious flaws, so let’s fix them or come up with something better. 

[Guardian]

That’s a pretty exaggerated talking point:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/trumps-claim-about-canadians-traveling-to-the-united-states-for-medical-care/%3foutputType=amp

Agree to disagree

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-08-03/canadians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care%3fcontext=amp