Health Care

[Kaos]

Wes (and to a lesser extent Chizad) -

We are worlds apart ideologically.  On this topic and in this arena we will never agree. I am fairly certain we are so far apart in viewpoint that common ground is likely impossible.  I firmly believe that your position and remedy to resolve a "crisis" I am convinced does not exist are not only fundamentally wrong but also detrimental to the survival of this country.

I do respect your opinion and am sadly aware that there are others who share it.  Doesn't change the fact that I know in my head and my heart that you are well-meaning but undeniably wrong.

I say that to say this.  You aren't going to change my mind. As long as I'm alive I'm going to do all I can to oppose this point of view.  I also realize you are equally entrenched.

My real hope is that as we (collectively) pull in opposite directions the end result is a compromise which satisfies neither of us fully but lands somewhere in the middle -- much closer to my side of course.

We can continue to debate this if you wish.  But we should do so knowing the ground rules. I'm not going to change my mind. Don't expect me to. 

[GH2001]

It is now affordable for all of those people getting subsidies. While the people who previously were barely able to afford it, now have no insurance.
So essentially, you stole from the working middle class to give to the poor.

Pretty much what I was saying a few posts up. It was a xfer of wealth at the end of the day. Disguised as a social program. I have major issues with that.

[GH2001]

Wes (and to a lesser extent Chizad) -

We are worlds apart ideologically.  On this topic and in this arena we will never agree. I am fairly certain we are so far apart in viewpoint that common ground is likely impossible.  I firmly believe that your position and remedy to resolve a "crisis" I am convinced does not exist are not only fundamentally wrong but also detrimental to the survival of this country.

I do respect your opinion and am sadly aware that there are others who share it.  Doesn't change the fact that I know in my head and my heart that you are well-meaning but undeniably wrong.

I say that to say this.  You aren't going to change my mind. As long as I'm alive I'm going to do all I can to oppose this point of view.  I also realize you are equally entrenched.

My real hope is that as we (collectively) pull in opposite directions the end result is a compromise which satisfies neither of us fully but lands somewhere in the middle -- much closer to my side of course.

We can continue to debate this if you wish.  But we should do so knowing the ground rules. I'm not going to change my mind. Don't expect me to.

You're right. At the end of the day I don't think anyone is gonna change anyone's mind outside of a miracle happening. We all come from different spots in life and have reasons for why we think what we do. I get that. But you'd be surprised at what middle ground you can hit when cooler heads prevail.

[GH2001]

I understand that you ideally want an opt out option for private insurance for people who can afford it, but I think that ignores bigger problems. First, the status quo is that 99% of people (that's Chizad math, didn't look up an actual stat) of people get quality health care plans from their employers. You offer a subpar government plan to everyone who doesn't want to buy their own "Cadillac" plan, and that goes away. Your choice is truly to take VA quality healthcare plan or spend a fortune to have your own plan, not subsidized by your employers. Secondly, I think common sense absolutely bares out that when doctors start getting paid average-Joe wages, you are no longer going to get the best and the brightest entering the field of medicine. Can't imagine how you would expect that to be the case.

That. ^^

Right there in bold. Excellent point.

[AUChizad]

Wes (and to a lesser extent Chizad) -

We are worlds apart ideologically.  On this topic and in this arena we will never agree. I am fairly certain we are so far apart in viewpoint that common ground is likely impossible.  I firmly believe that your position and remedy to resolve a "crisis" I am convinced does not exist are not only fundamentally wrong but also detrimental to the survival of this country.

I do respect your opinion and am sadly aware that there are others who share it.  Doesn't change the fact that I know in my head and my heart that you are well-meaning but undeniably wrong.

I say that to say this.  You aren't going to change my mind. As long as I'm alive I'm going to do all I can to oppose this point of view.  I also realize you are equally entrenched.

My real hope is that as we (collectively) pull in opposite directions the end result is a compromise which satisfies neither of us fully but lands somewhere in the middle -- much closer to my side of course.

We can continue to debate this if you wish.  But we should do so knowing the ground rules. I'm not going to change my mind. Don't expect me to.

I disagree that we should agree to disagree.

In all seriousness, while some of what you say here is true, I don't think it's a virtue to be hardheaded about political topics like this. I absolutely understand that certain ideological principles are ingrained at this point in your life. You're not still trying to figure out how you generally feel about entitlements and how much government should play a role in our daily lives.

But to apply it broadly across the board with zero thoughtful consideration to where you stand on something where maybe conflicting ideological principles may fall on an issue, especially "new" topics like the AHA and its replacement, is not good, IMO. ESPECIALLY if you're taking the extra lazy route IMO and saying "What does the guy with an R after his name think? Ok, that's what I think too" or vice-versa. I'm saying you may have beliefs in limited government AND moral/religious beliefs where you think the government should step in. There are topics where those two conflicting principles may be at odds. If you're being any degree of intellectually honest, you've got to make those determinations ad-hoc with different topics as they arise.

I think both Wes and Kaos have both made valid arguments that appear to conflict with principles within myself. Discussions like this, when they're able to stay on course as this one has, are helpful to me at least, in figuring out exactly where I do land on a topic like this because I don't don't just accept canned stances from party lines on one side of the aisle or the other.

[Kaos]

I disagree that we should agree to disagree.

In all seriousness, while some of what you say here is true, I don't think it's a virtue to be hardheaded about political topics like this. I absolutely understand that certain ideological principles are ingrained at this point in your life. You're not still trying to figure out how you generally feel about entitlements and how much government should play a role in our daily lives.

But to apply it broadly across the board with zero thoughtful consideration to where you stand on something where maybe conflicting ideological principles may fall on an issue, especially "new" topics like the AHA and its replacement, is not good, IMO. ESPECIALLY if you're taking the extra lazy route IMO and saying "What does the guy with an R after his name think? Ok, that's what I think too" or vice-versa. I'm saying you may have believes in limited government AND moral/religious beliefs where you think the government should step in. There are topics where those two conflicting principles may be at odds. If you're being any degree of intellectually honest, you've got to make those determinations ad-hoc with different topics as they arise.

I think both Wes and Kaos have both made valid arguments that appear to conflict with principles within myself. Discussions like this, when they're able to stay on course as this one has, are helpful to me at least, in figuring out exactly where I do land on a topic like this because I don't don't just accept canned stances from party lines on one side of the aisle or the other.

If you don't know me by now..... you will never ...

Anyhoo..

I don't care what party a person represents.  In my young and stupid days I bought into Carter.  I was okay with Bill until he lost hand and had to goosestep to Hillary's orders in exchange for her saving his political skin.

I dont and didn't oppose Obama because he was a dem.  I opposed him because I felt he was a big zero with foolish ideas and a good speechwriter.  I do find myself typically more aligned with the Republican Party. But it's not a given. 

I opposed the ACA not because it was a dem plan but because it represnted further government intrusion to solve a crisis I don't believe exists.  I continue to oppose it because I see the real world impact. 

It's not a party thing.  I'm open to debate on whatever.  I appreciate being challenged.

[Snaggletiger]

If you don't know me by now..... you will never ...

Anyhoo..

I don't care what party a person represents.  In my young and stupid days I bought into Carter.  I was okay with Bill until he lost hand and had to goosestep to Hillary's orders in exchange for her saving his political skin.

I dont and didn't oppose Obama because he was a dem.  I opposed him because I felt he was a big zero with foolish ideas and a good speechwriter.  I do find myself typically more aligned with the Republican Party. But it's not a given. 

I opposed the ACA not because it was a dem plan but because it represnted further government intrusion to solve a crisis I don't believe exists.  I continue to oppose it because I see the real world impact. 

It's not a party thing.  I'm open to debate on whatever.  I appreciate being challenged.

It's good to see the retards feeling like an integral part of society.  You embrace that, short bus.

[GH2001]

It's good to see the retards feeling like an integral part of society.  You embrace that, short bus.

And in comes snags with a right hook.


Because it certainly wasn't the balls.

[AUChizad]

I opposed the ACA not because it was a dem plan but because it represnted further government intrusion to solve a crisis I don't believe exists.

This sentence exemplifies why I myself am of two minds on this and why I fall somewhere between you and Wes.

I do see it as government intrusion and I do believe a crisis exists.

[GH2001]

This sentence exemplifies why I myself am of two minds on this and why I fall somewhere between you and Wes.

I do see it as government intrusion and I do believe a crisis exists.

I think the causes and remedies are more what's debated. And I'm not sure Wes likes some of my cause analysis. We've discussed this before. But SOME of it does involve tort reform. It's not THE problem. But it has been a problem in the past as far as cost of doing business for doctors.

[The Prowler]

American Nurses Association, American Hospital Association, & the American Medical Association have all come out against the Republican health care plan.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/323060-nurses-join-doctors-hospitals-in-ripping-gop-health-plan

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/322889-largest-doctors-group-opposes-gop-obamacare-bill

[Kaos]

American Nurses Association, American Hospital Association, & the American Medical Association have all come out against the Republican health care plan.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/323060-nurses-join-doctors-hospitals-in-ripping-gop-health-plan

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/322889-largest-doctors-group-opposes-gop-obamacare-bill

Fuck them.

Repeal the entire piece of shit and don't replace it with anything.  That's fine with me. 

[Token]

I'm catching up.  Without watching any slanted news on it (either way) or actually looking at the bill, we should all assume that the people who are actually in the healthcare field are not going to ever be ok with anything that doesn't line their pockets to the fullest.  I can't blame them, they spend a shit ton of time and money in school.  I'd want to be paid handsomely as well.  But they have a vested interest in healthcare not being labeled as "affordable" in any sense of the word. 

So yes, fuck their opinions. 

[Townhallsavoy]

I'm catching up.  Without watching any slanted news on it (either way) or actually looking at the bill, we should all assume that the people who are actually in the healthcare field are not going to ever be ok with anything that doesn't line their pockets to the fullest.  I can't blame them, they spend a shit ton of time and money in school.  I'd want to be paid handsomely as well.  But they have a vested interest in healthcare not being labeled as "affordable" in any sense of the word. 

So yes, fuck their opinions.

Agreed.

And there really needs to be some kind of regulation between Big Pharma sales and medical practice. The fact that people are getting rich off of people being sick is absolutely twisted. No way I trust anyone involved.

[wesfau2]

So now we're getting to the root of the issue.  Wes has white guilt.  Period. 

Point of order: I never mentioned race.  Poverty is an equal opportunity destroyer of lives.  It is not a choice.  No one chooses to begin there.

The rest of your post is anecdotal nothing. 

I'm not suggesting that health care is the silver bullet to correct society's ills, but it is a start.  There needs to be holistic overhaul of much of the assistance provided, but basic health care ought to be a fundamental right in the world's greatest country.

[wesfau2]

I'm not going to change my mind. Don't expect me to.

Christ on a cracker, no one who has spent any amount of time on this board expects that.

On the "repeal and replace" note, remember when I said it was not practical and unreasonable to slam the brakes and throw ACA out the window?  New estimates are in at $600Billion to repeal.

[GH2001]

Point of order: I never mentioned race.  Poverty is an equal opportunity destroyer of lives.  It is not a choice.  No one chooses to begin there.

The rest of your post is anecdotal nothing. 

I'm not suggesting that health care is the silver bullet to correct society's ills, but it is a start.  There needs to be holistic overhaul of much of the assistance provided, but basic health care ought to be a fundamental right in the world's greatest country.

Access to it is already.

Providing it and having it paid for? Not sure I agree with that. Just like anything else, you have a right to buy it. But you don't have a right to have it provided to you at someone else's expense. I know it's apples and oranges because healthcare is a necessity, but the same with a house or car. I have the right to have access to buy a house. Doesn't mean I have a financial path to do it. I'd buy what I could.

[GH2001]

Christ on a cracker, no one who has spent any amount of time on this board expects that.

On the "repeal and replace" note, remember when I said it was not practical and unreasonable to slam the brakes and throw ACA out the window?  New estimates are in at $600Billion to repeal.

Shortfall from the mandate going away has to be some of that - between people not buying it and not paying the fine for not doing so. If anything that part of the shortfall is showing that is was a quasi Ponzi scheme to start. Even Rahm Emmanuels brother has said as much. He was the author of it.

[AUJarhead]

There needs to be holistic overhaul of much of the assistance provided, but basic health care ought to be a fundamental right in the world's greatest country.

Totally agree about needing an overhaul, but throwing even more money at the problems won't address the root cause.

[GH2001]

Totally agree about needing an overhaul, but throwing even more money at the problems won't address the root cause.

Main point I've been driving at here. When do you stop increasing the money we throw at these issues?