View Full Version : How Did Obama Care Survive, When Supposedly, Everybody Hates It ???
Jeff '79
03-26-2017, 6:38am
:rofl:
If you really want to get down to brass tacks, the US has socialized medicine anyway, even w/o Obama Care.
The problem is the ACA and all the other "Health care " programs in America are all failures. None of them address the cost's of HC.
America spends 17.8% of GDP on HC. The next highest country is Switzerland that spends 11.7%.
We have a proven way to reduce overall spenind to less than 10% of GDP, Provide universal coverage, maintain quality of HC and get the insurance companies and government mostly out of the HC by putting the money in the hands of the citizens.
And Neither side in the political debate will go that way because it takes away the power from them.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.corvetteforum.com-vbulletin/1600x1049/80-u_s_healthcare_spending_as_percentage_of_gdp_a281085f833fdf74ae33ed3a6d4be319ea515fa6.jpg
Now look at the ROW.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.corvetteforum.com-vbulletin/533x562/80-econgraphic3_9aaaed1922d820e97354dd7b221c287fe04fd6a8.jpg
boracayjohnny
03-26-2017, 8:52am
I also say bought and paid for politicians is the norm for DC.
Jeff '79
03-26-2017, 9:04am
Maybe everyone doesn't hate it.
04 commemorative
03-26-2017, 9:50am
What choice did you have?
Maybe everyone doesn't hate it.
Of course everyone doesn't hate it. If you got something "for free," you don't hate it. Do people on Medicaid hate that government is getting involved in healthcare? Of course not. Everyone who got added to the Medicaid rolls, along with everyone who got "subsidies" AKA taxpayer money to pay for their health insurance, and also people who had their expensive pre-existing conditions covered, with or without a subsidy all came out winners with ObamaCare. They got free stuff, courtesy of the government, no different than getting an ObamaPhone. And sadly, we have conditioned people that "free" stuff from the government isn't a bad thing. My grandparents' generation looked at free stuff from the government as shameful. Americans, by and large, no longer see it that way. We are the entitlement generation. By God, we are ENTITLED to "free" shit paid for by others, and there's no shame in that. We are owed something. That attitude right there is what will eventually sink America.
If you are like me and the only thing you got out of ObamaCare is that your insurance costs went up over 100%, you aren't to happy with it. If you got "free" shit, you'd have to be pretty principled to advocate for the repeal of ObamaCare. I doubt there are enough principled Americans left to win an election.
Shrike6
03-26-2017, 9:59am
And that's it in a nutshell. Free shit is corrupting, and the entitlement mindset is controlling the politics.
Millenium Vette
03-26-2017, 9:59am
How Did Obama Care Survive, When Supposedly, Everybody Hates It ???
The same way Nancy Pelosi survives being the House minority leader when everybody hates her.
WalkerInTN
03-26-2017, 10:05am
From what I've seen on the news, 24 million less people would have coverage. A vote for that won't win you any popularity contests. If you're going to go out there on TV & keep saying we can do better, you have to actually come up with something better, not something worse. :nonod:
Now it looks like they're giving up on that to go after taxes. :island14:
WalkerInTN
03-26-2017, 10:09am
Oh, & every time I see some fatass on a Powerchair, I think that's one of the reasons healthcare costs are skyrocketing. :yesnod:
VatorMan
03-26-2017, 10:32am
Face it, we are on a fast track to single payer health care. Just like Obama wanted. As said here, once someone gets something for free, their vote is bought.
Jeff '79
03-26-2017, 10:36am
Canada's health care system works, but it is my understanding that they are taxed at a much higher rate than we are here in the US.
Is that correct?
Here is a synopsis of Single Payer vs Universal health care coverage.
https://www.formosapost.com/pros-and-cons-of-single-payer-health-care/
The comments are very interesting.
Cybercowboy
03-26-2017, 10:39am
From what I've seen on the news, 24 million less people would have coverage
Which is complete and utter bullsheet. Did Obamacare count those who lost their current plans as "less people would have coverage"? Because there were millions upon millions of us. No, most of us had to buck up and purchase plans off the exchanges or private plans that were now onerously expensive. But that's OK, because a bunch of people got shoved onto the Medicaid rolls, and getting them off that will be like extracting cactus needles from a pissed off cat with one hand, naked.
Welp, now that Missouri is down to exactly one provider of private health insurance (Anthem) I guess my next rate jump will take me into four-figures land. At that point I'll make the logical decision to just say "You know what? F**k it." Why pay $12,000+ a year, along with >$6500 deductibles and copays for everything when I can just roll the dice? No, Obamacare is completely unsustainable and now we get to see what happens as it completely implodes. Which sucks, but it was pretty much baked into the entire thing from the beginning.
SnikPlosskin
03-26-2017, 10:51am
Of course everyone doesn't hate it. If you got something "for free," you don't hate it. Do people on Medicaid hate that government is getting involved in healthcare? Of course not. Everyone who got added to the Medicaid rolls, along with everyone who got "subsidies" AKA taxpayer money to pay for their health insurance, and also people who had their expensive pre-existing conditions covered, with or without a subsidy all came out winners with ObamaCare. They got free stuff, courtesy of the government, no different than getting an ObamaPhone. And sadly, we have conditioned people that "free" stuff from the government isn't a bad thing. My grandparents' generation looked at free stuff from the government as shameful. Americans, by and large, no longer see it that way. We are the entitlement generation. By God, we are ENTITLED to "free" shit paid for by others, and there's no shame in that. We are owed something. That attitude right there is what will eventually sink America.
If you are like me and the only thing you got out of ObamaCare is that your insurance costs went up over 100%, you aren't to happy with it. If you got "free" shit, you'd have to be pretty principled to advocate for the repeal of ObamaCare. I doubt there are enough principled Americans left to win an election.
One problem with your analysis. at first this was the case (with a lot of added problems and hassles due to red tape and doctors cutting costs - like competent staff) but each year, fewer amd fewer policies were available that covered these conditions.
Also, people with these conditions DID have coverage available in Risk Sharing pools - it was expensive, but you got coverage.
Now, the pools are illegal and the choices are down to zero. People with expensive conditions are being left to die without access to doctors or medications.
It's been a rapid but gradual shift. Each year as your policy is terminated and replaced, you find that your doctors are not covered and/or the drugs you need have been dropped from the formularies.
Healthy people who get subsidies are happy with it. Just wait until you actually need it.
Maybe everyone doesn't hate it.
The people who don't have to pay for it love it. The people who get guaranteed income love it. The politicians love it because it moves more money and power into thier hands.
The people who have to pay for it hate it. And they are in the minority.
Since the average Health insurance cost for a family of 4 is 18,142.00
Health Insurance: Premiums and Increases (http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx)
Since America spend 17.8% of GDP on HC and hte rest of the world averages 10% if we could cut costs to what the norm is each household would save a little over 7.9K each year on HC costs.
Now if you factor in Medicaid and Medicare which spend almost 1.2 TRILLION each year imagine what the people in America could do with all that extra money? 480 BILLION could be saved in the federal budget.
https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html
Obamacare and the recent republican effort did nothing to reduce costs. All it does is shift the costs.
One problem with your analysis. at first this was the case (with a lot of added problems and hassles due to red tape and doctors cutting costs - like competent staff) but each year, fewer amd fewer policies were available that covered these conditions.
Also, people with these conditions DID have coverage available in Risk Sharing pools - it was expensive, but you got coverage.
Now, the pools are illegal and the choices are down to zero. People with expensive conditions are being left to die without access to doctors or medications.
It's been a rapid but gradual shift. Each year as your policy is terminated and replaced, you find that your doctors are not covered and/or the drugs you need have been dropped from the formularies.
Healthy people who get subsidies are happy with it. Just wait until you actually need it.
In an odd way, you were like me, a winner under the old, still not a free market system, but we are both losers under the new system.
Having said that, you, and others similarly situated, need socialism to live, and the rest of us are potentially one illness or injury from being in the same boat as you.
From each, according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
This is basically what we are talking about.
you can trace the beginnings of this back to the mid 60s when gov't first got involved in paying for medical care. once the people getting paid figured out that gov't was the one writing the checks, well....gov't never runs out of money, so let's raise prices across the board. let's make things overly complicated to make more money.
want to stream line things? get gov't out of it entirely. what about the poor you ask? fine, set up a poor folks system, parallel to the private system. spend the piles of money on hospitals, doctors and nurses, technicians - all now gov't employees. model on the wonderful VA.
me?
i'm out 691/month. :faint: 1200 deductible, 3600 out of pocket/year max.
folks that have 6000 deductibles (12000 for family) don't have insurance they can use, but they have a nice card in their pocket and they pray they don't get sick beyond needing an aspirin and a bandaid.
:slap:
VatorMan
03-26-2017, 12:46pm
Canada's health care system works, but it is my understanding that they are taxed at a much higher rate than we are here in the US.
Is that correct?
Here is a synopsis of Single Payer vs Universal health care coverage.
https://www.formosapost.com/pros-and-cons-of-single-payer-health-care/
The comments are very interesting.
Everybody points to Canada. How much does Canada pay toward defense ? Do they rely on "Big Brother" and spend that money on social services ? Why yes, they do. Every single country with social medicine relies on the US for the majority of their defense. It's time to end THAT.
you can trace the beginnings of this back to the mid 60s when gov't first got involved in paying for medical care. once the people getting paid figured out that gov't was the one writing the checks, well....gov't never runs out of money, so let's raise prices across the board. let's make things overly complicated to make more money.
want to stream line things? get gov't out of it entirely. what about the poor you ask? fine, set up a poor folks system, parallel to the private system. spend the piles of money on hospitals, doctors and nurses, technicians - all now gov't employees. model on the wonderful VA.
me?
i'm out 691/month. :faint: 1200 deductible, 3600 out of pocket/year max.
folks that have 6000 deductibles (12000 for family) don't have insurance they can use, but they have a nice card in their pocket and they pray they don't get sick beyond needing an aspirin and a bandaid.
:slap:
I have a $ 5,000 deductible. Prior to O'Care, it was over $ 6,000 before dime one got paid by my insurer. I got what I paid for, catastrophic coverage. Routine medical expenses got paid by yours truly, premiums were reasonable, and I was happy with that. That is what insurance is supposed to be. Now, I have a catastrophic coverage policy that covers me for pregnancy and drug rehab, but the money that formerly got spent on routine medical care gets spent on insurance premiums. So I must pray I don't get sick and need an aspirin and Bandaid, because that money has already been spent, thanks to ObamaCare.
I'm not insuring my house to pay to refinish my front door, or to replace the microwave when it fails, I'm insuring the house to buy a new roof, sheetrock, insulation, paint, carpet, etc., when a hurricane comes through.
well, i for one, am thankful that i have maternity coverage, free gym membership, pediatric care, coverage for women's only things.... :slap:
with gov't mandating what insurance i can purchase, i end up paying rates to insure a Rolls Royce, but i'm still driving a Pinto.
it's insane.
but knowing that someday in the next 2 years i'm due for a new pacer, that will run about $120k+, it's in my interest to continue to be covered in some manner. :slap:
well, i for one, am thankful that i have maternity coverage, free gym membership, pediatric care, coverage for women's only things.... :slap:
with gov't mandating what insurance i can purchase, i end up paying rates to insure a Rolls Royce, but i'm still driving a Pinto.
it's insane.
but knowing that someday in the next 2 years i'm due for a new pacer, that will run about $120k+, it's in my interest to continue to be covered in some manner. :slap:
Don't you just get a new battery in the existing device? A relative got one, and the docs said in about 5 years, they'd have to put in a new battery, a relatively simple procedure, no messing with the leads, etc. No mention of a new device, either.
you get a new device, the leads stay put. the battery is integral to the device, much like an iPhone. it's part of it. plus they get a chance to upgrade you if needed. either better programming, better battery life, different makers...whatever is appropriate for you.
i've read that some now are able to be recharged without taking them out. just put a recharging pad over it once in a while, and it's back to 100% battery life. that would be cool. no more surgeries. :smash:
WalkerInTN
03-26-2017, 1:29pm
Which is complete and utter bullsheet. Did Obamacare count those who lost their current plans as "less people would have coverage"? Because there were millions upon millions of us. No, most of us had to buck up and purchase plans off the exchanges or private plans that were now onerously expensive. But that's OK, because a bunch of people got shoved onto the Medicaid rolls, and getting them off that will be like extracting cactus needles from a pissed off cat with one hand, naked.
Welp, now that Missouri is down to exactly one provider of private health insurance (Anthem) I guess my next rate jump will take me into four-figures land. At that point I'll make the logical decision to just say "You know what? F**k it." Why pay $12,000+ a year, along with >$6500 deductibles and copays for everything when I can just roll the dice? No, Obamacare is completely unsustainable and now we get to see what happens as it completely implodes. Which sucks, but it was pretty much baked into the entire thing from the beginning.
Well, blame the fake news that's on every channel. :island14:
Doesn't change the fact that Republicans had the opportunity to change it, but weren't able to get the job done. :leaving:
Jeff '79
03-26-2017, 1:43pm
Well, blame the fake news that's on every channel. :island14:
Doesn't change the fact that Republicans had the opportunity to change it, but weren't able to get the job done. :leaving:
They had no plan.
What an ass Trump was to try to bully that through without some sort of plan that all could agree on.
Quite the deal maker he is...
He's nothing but a bully, ass, that will get us nowhere for 4 years at the rate he's going.
VatorMan
03-26-2017, 1:47pm
They had no plan.
What an ass Trump was to try to bully that through without some sort of plan that all could agree on.
Quite the deal maker he is...
He's nothing but a bully, ass that will get us nowhere for 4 years at the rate he's going.
He's an ass that knew those assholes had 7 years to come up with a plan and did nothing. He had something on the table in 60 days and those same assholes that had nothing to show for 7 years knew the jig was up. As a Republican, I can honestly say I'm ashamed of all the Pub Congressional assholes.
I hope every single one of them are out of a job next term.
Jeff '79
03-26-2017, 1:48pm
He's an ass that knew those assholes had 7 years to come up with a plan and did nothing. He had something on the table in 60 days and those same assholes that had nothing to show for 7 years knew the jig was up. As a Republican, I can honestly say I'm ashamed of all the Pub Congressional assholes.
I hope every single one of them are out of a job next term.
Yup... :iagree:
They had no plan.
What an ass Trump was to try to bully that through without some sort of plan that all could agree on.
Quite the deal maker he is...
He's nothing but a bully, ass, that will get us nowhere for 4 years at the rate he's going.
I disagree. This was just an early chess move. Trump needed to demonstrate that the Pubs are as equally clueless about teh governance as teh Dems. This was rubbing their noses in their own incompetence. Trump's got plenty of time to do something, and we already know up front that everyone isn't going to like what is done, no matter what. It all comes down to, some will win, some will lose. Will the losers be drug makers that have the force of government used to lower drug prices (and thus, drugmaker's profits)? Will the losers be the millions that taxpayers are now subisdizing or outright just paying full freight for? Somebody is going to lose and be pissed about it, just like O'Care.
Personally, I think it's good that Trump isn't interested in supporting a dog of a bill, just to say he did it, which is what happened with ObamaCare, exactly.
People can continue to benefit or suffer under the old law until such time as something acceptable to Trump gets traction.
Jeff '79
03-26-2017, 2:09pm
I disagree. This was just an early chess move. Trump needed to demonstrate that the Pubs are as equally clueless about teh governance as teh Dems. This was rubbing their noses in their own incompetence. Trump's got plenty of time to do something, and we already know up front that everyone isn't going to like what is done, no matter what. It all comes down to, some will win, some will lose. Will the losers be drug makers that have the force of government used to lower drug prices (and thus, drugmaker's profits)? Will the losers be the millions that taxpayers are now subisdizing or outright just paying full freight for? Somebody is going to lose and be pissed about it, just like O'Care.
Personally, I think it's good that Trump isn't interested in supporting a dog of a bill, just to say he did it, which is what happened with ObamaCare, exactly.
People can continue to benefit or suffer under the old law until such time as something acceptable to Trump gets traction.
Oh.
I misread what happened for the past few weeks then.
I thought the bill was DOA, not to be attempted again, and a huge defeat for Trump.
Cybercowboy
03-26-2017, 2:18pm
Take a step back and realize that it's not R vs D here. It's T vs Establishment. Here's what Trump stated he wanted to do as president:
Cut taxes across the board.
Put Americans first. Across the board.
Bring manufacturing jobs back to American. With Americans working those jobs.
Repeal and replace Obamacare.
Stop needless wars. If we do have to fight one, win it bigly. No more ties.
Stop paying for the rest of the western world's security. They have money, they can buck up.
Get a conservative into Scalia's vacant seat.
Build a wall. Reestablish the rule of law on our borders and security.
That's more or less it. And it goes against not just democrat sensibilities, but establishment republican sensibilities. The various lobbying groups want cheap immigrant labor, they want to ship jobs overseas, and they want to outsource our technical jobs to the lowest foreign bidder if at all possible. They have lots of money to buy off politicians.
So we elect a guy who can't be bought, who's not beholden to special interests, who owes no political favors of any significance, and the media can't stand him because they are all democrats. The democrats hate him. The establishment republicans hate him. The deep state permaparty hates him especially. He's a complete threat to all they have worked for - the complete and total usurpation of American power and the idea that citizens actually have a say in our government.
All he has is the support of his voters. That's it. If he goes down, that's it for America. I know this sounds nuts, because that can't happen can it? America will be fine if these forces destroy his presidency, right?
No, it won't be. We will enter into a very dark period.
But that doesn't have to happen. We just need to stay vigilant and call out the bullshit. Obamacare was passed in reconciliation with the OBM full budgetary approval (meaning they saw it as revenue neutral) when the bill allowed the head of the HHS to change the law over 1000 times. Meanwhile, the same OBM scores any plan to reform the ACA as completely terrible. Despite the fact that it's imploding. Trump knows that it's likely the GOP uniparty is going to torpedo this thing, but he put them on record. Sometimes that's all you can do. I'm not even pissed off. I fully expected this sort of thing to happen. Obamacare was designed to be a landmine for any reformer. It's also designed to implode. So let it.
Oh.
I misread what happened for the past few weeks then.
I thought the bill was DOA, not to be attempted again, and a huge defeat for Trump.
Trump had it pulled from the table, and yes, it was DOA because it wasn't what Trump promised, a repeal and replace. It contained too much of what people like about ObamaCare, namely, free shit. Whatever he puts together isn't going to be much better, IMHO, because he made too many promises of free shit, so people like me, healthy, who just pay for everything, aren't going to like it. Trump and the Pubs just couldn't agree on the amount of free shit that was going to be acceptable, which is why it got pulled.
But hey, back to insurance.....
If we are going to call it insurance, we can't force insurers to accept pre-existing conditions, which is popular until people figure out it makes their own health premiums skyrocket.
Making them take pre-existing conditions is like me signing up for home insurance after my house burns down, making a claim for the burnt down home, then rebuilding my house, and burning it down each subsequent year, each time filing a claim for the burnt down house. I don't know what that is, but it isn't insurance.
The only fair way to do this is to revert back to a truly free market system. The poor with no insurance die. People with pre-existing conditions like Snake die. The healthy don't get screwed on medical expenses, and the medical community suffers because no one is paying for much of the treatment that is currently paid for by taxpayers. They are forced to lower their prices, because demand for their services goes way down, as large swaths of the citizenry can't pay for treatment, and the medical providers are forced to compete for the business of those remaining who can pay. Competition lowers prices. That's the free market in action.
The other option is to go Venezuela. Hey, let's go full on nacionalización. The factory that makes Remicade? Let's send in the troops and seize it. Screw the stockholders who own the company. Actually, we don't even have to send in troops, just pull another bloodless Government Motors takeover. Do the same thing with hospitals, labs, and medical practices, and voila, everything is gravy. Well, until the inevitable shortages start, because the Remicade workers, the hospital workers, and the doctors and nurses in those private practices don't want to work under such a system anymore.
I have an answer to this problem, but I doubt anyone is going to like it.
Jeff '79
03-26-2017, 2:46pm
Trump had it pulled from the table, and yes, it was DOA because it wasn't what Trump promised, a repeal and replace. It contained too much of what people like about ObamaCare, namely, free shit. Whatever he puts together isn't going to be much better, IMHO, because he made too many promises of free shit, so people like me, healthy, who just pay for everything, aren't going to like it. Trump and the Pubs just couldn't agree on the amount of free shit that was going to be acceptable, which is why it got pulled.
But hey, back to insurance.....
If we are going to call it insurance, we can't force insurers to accept pre-existing conditions, which is popular until people figure out it makes their own health premiums skyrocket.
Making them take pre-existing conditions is like me signing up for home insurance after my house burns down, making a claim for the burnt down home, then rebuilding my house, and burning it down each subsequent year, each time filing a claim for the burnt down house. I don't know what that is, but it isn't insurance.
The only fair way to do this is to revert back to a truly free market system. The poor with no insurance die. People with pre-existing conditions like Snake die. The healthy don't get screwed on medical expenses, and the medical community suffers because no one is paying for much of the treatment that is currently paid for by taxpayers. They are forced to lower their prices, because demand for their services goes way down, as large swaths of the citizenry can't pay for treatment, and the medical providers are forced to compete for the business of those remaining who can pay. Competition lowers prices. That's the free market in action.
The other option is to go Venezuela. Hey, let's go full on nacionalización. The factory that makes Remicade? Let's send in the troops and seize it. Screw the stockholders who own the company. Actually, we don't even have to send in troops, just pull another bloodless Government Motors takeover. Do the same thing with hospitals, labs, and medical practices, and voila, everything is gravy. Well, until the inevitable shortages start, because the Remicade workers, the hospital workers, and the doctors and nurses in those private practices don't want to work under such a system anymore.
I have an answer to this problem, but I doubt anyone is going to like it.
It sounds a lot more complicated that Trump could have envisioned. :Jeff '79:
Ya, you pretty much nailed the conundrum. :yesnod:
tell you what, if you support Trump, tell him.
write an email to him, or better yet, a letter on paper. a short letter, telling you are behind him, and you support him.
President Donald J. Trump
The White House.
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20500.
:type:
i've written before, maybe i'll write again today.
boracayjohnny
03-26-2017, 3:59pm
My take on all this and it's just some douche bag that can type...
Trump likes to wheel and deal. He likes to win. He knew the DC folks only want what they want and fukk the voters. Trump let Ryan, the typical DC shithead, do what he wanted because he, Trump, recognizes an amateur deal maker. Ryan couldn't even get Obama 2.0 pushed through, see what I mean. Trump smiled and said, "I got your ass now, bitch". Now, Trump will now begin to wheel and deal. He knows everyone, the DC folks, wants something. In the coming weeks, Trump will wiggle through all the snakes and do what he wants, deal making. Expect more Twitter statements and action from Trump playing 10D chess while others are playing 1D.
But I could be wrong. I'm just a douche bag that can type.
For the good of the country, I sure hope I'm right. That's what I'd like to see, do what's right for the country which means the people.
saved a stamp, wrote an email via the WH website. :type:
SnikPlosskin
03-26-2017, 4:38pm
In an odd way, you were like me, a winner under the old, still not a free market system, but we are both losers under the new system.
Having said that, you, and others similarly situated, need socialism to live, and the rest of us are potentially one illness or injury from being in the same boat as you.
From each, according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
This is basically what we are talking about.
I'm not sure I'd say I was a "winner" under the old system. I paid 200% of the average Texas premium (with increases every year) and a $5000 deductible.
But I could see just about any doctor I wanted and received the treatment I need. The risk pools are subsidized - but only because care is artificially expensive.
As far as "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" - I'm in no way advocating that.
In the f_ucked up old system (as opposed to the more f_ucked up new system) my diagnosis caused me to be dropped from the regular insurance system - but only because I moved to a different state. If our insurance was portable, this would not have happened. Only when I moved, did I face not being insurable.
I'm advocating three basic, free market things:
Price transparency
Allow individuals to form buying groups
Allow intra-state trade of insurance and drugs
I want the government out of the healthcare business. Period.
The above policies would lower the cost of care to the point where I could not only buy insurance but also pay for my treatment.
Now if I get to the point where I can't work, this is why almost everyone agrees there should be some sort of safety net - but I don't think it needs to be government based. Private charities and existing regulations that require pharma companies to provide drugs for indigent people take care of that.
I would even go for making the insurance companies take a loss on those citizens - Aetna (the nation's largest insurer) netted over $700 billion last year.
The top 10 biologic drugs net $106 billion every year. Year after year after year.
In the greatest, most prosperous country in the world, no citizen should be denied care even if some taxpayer money is needed to make it work.
We spent 15 trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone as of 2013 (think about what we've spent since then with the surge and now re engagement.
Another thing would be to make an exception for people under 65 with chronic illness - let them receive Medicare but remove the earnings cap (currently under $2k per month is the max amount you can earn - which means you are cursed to live in abject poverty if you get sick).
So many ways to solve this problem - and none of them involve the government controlling healthcare.
SnikPlosskin
03-26-2017, 4:41pm
My take on all this and it's just some douche bag that can type...
Trump likes to wheel and deal. He likes to win. He knew the DC folks only want what they want and fukk the voters. Trump let Ryan, the typical DC shithead, do what he wanted because he, Trump, recognizes an amateur deal maker. Ryan couldn't even get Obama 2.0 pushed through, see what I mean. Trump smiled and said, "I got your ass now, bitch". Now, Trump will now begin to wheel and deal. He knows everyone, the DC folks, wants something. In the coming weeks, Trump will wiggle through all the snakes and do what he wants, deal making. Expect more Twitter statements and action from Trump playing 10D chess while others are playing 1D.
But I could be wrong. I'm just a douche bag that can type.
For the good of the country, I sure hope I'm right. That's what I'd like to see, do what's right for the country which means the people.
There is a negotiating technique called "taking the deal off the table" - it gives the seller (in this case Trump) leverage. He is working Congress in his own way. There is no way he is going to just "move on" with regard to healthcare.
Most people don't know about business negotiating. Your post, while douchey :D is pretty much right on.
to those who imagine that a 'single payer' (.gov) plan is the only alternative remaining with any viability, let me pose a thought experiment:
imagine i'm an electro-mechanical genius. i design all sorts of medical related devices that save lives everyday. and i currently make a pretty good living doing so, having negotiated a lucrative contract whereby the more my designs sell, the more i make in my pocket. i get a % of the gross. it's a good deal, leaves me the freedom to invent new things all the time while getting residuals every month.
now gov't imposes caps on medical device costs, caps on salaries, even caps on my pay (shouldn't get rich off the sick theory). all with the intention of reducing medical costs so everyone can get the best care anywhere. sounds noble.
one problem: me. i look at this mess and decide i'm not interested in working with such caps placed on me. so i stop inventing. yes, the residuals dry up as the existing stock is used up. no more devices get made, as the cost of making them is more than the gov't will pay for them. device makers shutter their doors too.
i've been wise and frugal, i've saved money, so i can just invest it well and live off the dividends and interest and capital gains (some of which are tax free!).
now no one can get a pace maker, as no one is making them anymore. but the 3 remaining on the shelf are priced so even the poor can afford them. if they hurry.
you may as well shutter the hospitals now, as they will just decay with no one there anymore.
so yeah, 'single payer' sounds great, until you have to find some sheets for the beds that have no nurses to attend to them.
:DAB:
There is a negotiating technique called "taking the deal off the table" - it gives the seller (in this case Trump) leverage. He is working Congress in his own way. There is no way he is going to just "move on" with regard to healthcare.
Most people don't know about business negotiating. Your post, while douchey :D is pretty much right on.
:iagree:
BTDT. When the deal is going south and you are going to get screwed just being in it you say "NFW" and walk away. Especially if you recognize that the other party is standing in quick sand.
HC in America is in serious trouble. The fast people feel the pain the fast Trump will be able to get a better deal.
I'm not sure I'd say I was a "winner" under the old system. I paid 200% of the average Texas premium (with increases every year) and a $5000 deductible.
But I could see just about any doctor I wanted and received the treatment I need. The risk pools are subsidized - but only because care is artificially expensive.
As far as "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" - I'm in no way advocating that.
In the f_ucked up old system (as opposed to the more f_ucked up new system) my diagnosis caused me to be dropped from the regular insurance system - but only because I moved to a different state. If our insurance was portable, this would not have happened. Only when I moved, did I face not being insurable.
I'm advocating three basic, free market things:
Price transparency
Allow individuals to form buying groups
Allow intra-state trade of insurance and drugs
I want the government out of the healthcare business. Period.
The above policies would lower the cost of care to the point where I could not only buy insurance but also pay for my treatment.
Now if I get to the point where I can't work, this is why almost everyone agrees there should be some sort of safety net - but I don't think it needs to be government based. Private charities and existing regulations that require pharma companies to provide drugs for indigent people take care of that.
I would even go for making the insurance companies take a loss on those citizens - Aetna (the nation's largest insurer) netted over $700 billion last year.
The top 10 biologic drugs net $106 billion every year. Year after year after year.
In the greatest, most prosperous country in the world, no citizen should be denied care even if some taxpayer money is needed to make it work.
We spent 15 trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone as of 2013 (think about what we've spent since then with the surge and now re engagement.
Another thing would be to make an exception for people under 65 with chronic illness - let them receive Medicare but remove the earnings cap (currently under $2k per month is the max amount you can earn - which means you are cursed to live in abject poverty if you get sick).
So many ways to solve this problem - and none of them involve the government controlling healthcare.
1) Guaranteed winner. When you signed up for Texas' state pool insurance, it was like sitting down at a slot machine guaranteed to win every time you play. No matter how much premium you paid, or how large the deductible, you and the state both knew up front Texas was going to pay out much more in claims. I know that doesn't feel like winning, since you got the short end of the straw, health wise, but there it is. Compare and contrast that to me. I've had my current insurer for 20 years, and only once have they actually paid anything, when I broke a leg. 19 out of 20 years, my insurer won the bet. 100% less administrative costs, of course.
I'm advocating three basic, free market things:
Price transparency
Allow individuals to form buying groups
Allow intra-state trade of insurance and drugs
I want the government out of the healthcare business. Period.
2) Without government intervention, I don't see how this helps you or other chronically sick people enough to matter.
You need a crazy expensive drug. How long before it can become generic? Until then, you know exactly how much it costs. You form a buying group that apparently will negotiate for it better than the state of Texas did. How much, exactly do you see your negotiation skills getting the maker to come down on their price? It isn't like you are negotiating for a Chevy, but there's a Ford dealer down the street if you don't like Chevy's offer. You aren't negotiating from a position of strength. It's like when we were looking to buy my now ex-wife a Mercedes. They don't negotiate price (maybe they do now, but back then, not really). After getting that answer from a few dealerships, even some out of state, I'm telling her, @#$% that, get a different brand of car. No, that wasn't an option for her, so we (I) ended up getting bent over by the MB dealership that knocked off 2 or 3 hundred. That's most probably how your negotiation would go. As far as the intra state thing, I agree that's a good idea, but again, I don't see how much that is going to help the health insurance consumer. The only thing that could really help is to allow people to buy meds overseas from 3rd world countries where they are cheaper and import them. People I know used to go to Mexico to the farmacias right across the border to buy meds they needed or might need in the future, with no script needed (narcotic drugs excepted, of course). Is Remicade sold cheaper in Mexico? I doubt it is sold cheaper in Rhode Island, for example, than it is in Texas, so how does intra state drug sales help the consumer any appreciable amount?
There is a negotiating technique called "taking the deal off the table" - it gives the seller (in this case Trump) leverage. He is working Congress in his own way. There is no way he is going to just "move on" with regard to healthcare.
Most people don't know about business negotiating. Your post, while douchey :D is pretty much right on.
^^^^^^^This. Trump doesn't want his name on a steaming pile of Obama.
SnikPlosskin
03-26-2017, 10:40pm
Trump had it pulled from the table, and yes, it was DOA because it wasn't what Trump promised, a repeal and replace. It contained too much of what people like about ObamaCare, namely, free shit. Whatever he puts together isn't going to be much better, IMHO, because he made too many promises of free shit, so people like me, healthy, who just pay for everything, aren't going to like it. Trump and the Pubs just couldn't agree on the amount of free shit that was going to be acceptable, which is why it got pulled.
Yep.
But hey, back to insurance.....
If we are going to call it insurance, we can't force insurers to accept pre-existing conditions, which is popular until people figure out it makes their own health premiums skyrocket.
Making them take pre-existing conditions is like me signing up for home insurance after my house burns down, making a claim for the burnt down home, then rebuilding my house, and burning it down each subsequent year, each time filing a claim for the burnt down house. I don't know what that is, but it isn't insurance.
Agree. That is not how insurance works and they should be able to exclude uninsured people who sign up after they have a problem.
Except for one issue. I've been paying for insurance my entire adult life. I didn't just sign up when I got sick. Your simplistic, ideological view isn't accurate to the real world. Again, the cause of this problem is regulation. The insurance companies rig the system, via powerful lobbies so they can renege on their contracts and cancel you.
This happened to my wife first when she had cancer - bankrupting us. Then again to me when I was diagnosed. EVEN THOUGH WE PAOD OUR PREMIUMS FOR YEARS.
The only fair way to do this is to revert back to a truly free market system. The poor with no insurance die. People with pre-existing conditions like Snake die. The healthy don't get screwed on medical expenses, and the medical community suffers because no one is paying for much of the treatment that is currently paid for by taxpayers. They are forced to lower their prices, because demand for their services goes way down, as large swaths of the citizenry can't pay for treatment, and the medical providers are forced to compete for the business of those remaining who can pay. Competition lowers prices. That's the free market in action.
Once again, over the top ideology. "There's only one way..." wrong. The strict Libertarian in you would oppose any sort of safety net. That's wrong. And nobody is arguing for that. The problem is that the safety net is abused and out of control. Not that it exists.
There are many ways to take care of people who need help. You seem to think I'm an invalid.
Over the last 9 years I've paid an average of $60k per year out of pocket. With the exception of the last two years, I've been able to make enough money to support my family and pay for treatment.
If free market principles are applied, the cost of my treatment would drop like a stone. I could pay for it myself because of my earning potential and skill set.
On the other hand, the average joe would be in trouble - but that's why we have a safety net - for the old, the infirm and the true poor.
The other option is to go Venezuela. Hey, let's go full on nacionalización. The factory that makes Remicade? Let's send in the troops and seize it. Screw the stockholders who own the company. Actually, we don't even have to send in troops, just pull another bloodless Government Motors takeover. Do the same thing with hospitals, labs, and medical practices, and voila, everything is gravy. Well, until the inevitable shortages start, because the Remicade workers, the hospital workers, and the doctors and nurses in those private practices don't want to work under such a system anymore.
I have an answer to this problem, but I doubt anyone is going to like it.
Again, extreme, over the top nonsense. Free market principles will bring the cost of the drug down - no gov takeover needed (I thought you actually understood free markets). It will still be pricey and some won't be able to afford it, but it won't be prohibitively expensive.
SnikPlosskin
03-26-2017, 10:55pm
1) Guaranteed winner. When you signed up for Texas' state pool insurance, it was like sitting down at a slot machine guaranteed to win every time you play. No matter how much premium you paid, or how large the deductible, you and the state both knew up front Texas was going to pay out much more in claims. I know that doesn't feel like winning, since you got the short end of the straw, health wise, but there it is. Compare and contrast that to me. I've had my current insurer for 20 years, and only once have they actually paid anything, when I broke a leg. 19 out of 20 years, my insurer won the bet. 100% less administrative costs, of course.
2) Without government intervention, I don't see how this helps you or other chronically sick people enough to matter.
You need a crazy expensive drug. How long before it can become generic? Until then, you know exactly how much it costs. You form a buying group that apparently will negotiate for it better than the state of Texas did. How much, exactly do you see your negotiation skills getting the maker to come down on their price? It isn't like you are negotiating for a Chevy, but there's a Ford dealer down the street if you don't like Chevy's offer. You aren't negotiating from a position of strength. It's like when we were looking to buy my now ex-wife a Mercedes. They don't negotiate price (maybe they do now, but back then, not really). After getting that answer from a few dealerships, even some out of state, I'm telling her, @#$% that, get a different brand of car. No, that wasn't an option for her, so we (I) ended up getting bent over by the MB dealership that knocked off 2 or 3 hundred. That's most probably how your negotiation would go. As far as the intra state thing, I agree that's a good idea, but again, I don't see how much that is going to help the health insurance consumer. The only thing that could really help is to allow people to buy meds overseas from 3rd world countries where they are cheaper and import them. People I know used to go to Mexico to the farmacias right across the border to buy meds they needed or might need in the future, with no script needed (narcotic drugs excepted, of course). Is Remicade sold cheaper in Mexico? I doubt it is sold cheaper in Rhode Island, for example, than it is in Texas, so how does intra state drug sales help the consumer any appreciable amount?
With all due respect (and I do respect you) you are ill informed about how buying groups work. We are talking about very large groups like AARP for example. Much larger groups than the State of Texas. (About 15,000 people FYI).
And not groups with everybody having the same problems. Diverse groups.
The issue for people like me is specific to individual policies and the protectionist market laws around them.
One, because you are healthy, you don't have the complete picture. I'm also guessing you don't buy your own insurance. (E.g., you have employer provided group insurance.)
Did you know that the law takes away my choice to participate in a group policy? Why is that?
You haven't lived it. You haven't researched it.
If you did you would know that Remicade is $7k in Wyoming but $25k here in Texas. But I can't buy it from Wyoming. Why is that?
If you want to live in your Darwinian fantasy, go live as a mountain man. We live in the most advanced, most prosperous country in history. We had a system that worked. In other words, it's not an economic or ideological theory.
It worked before the ACA. Was it a Libertarian wet dream? (BTW, I'm a Libertarian) no. But it worked.
Again, extreme, over the top nonsense. Free market principles will bring the cost of the drug down - no gov takeover needed (I thought you actually understood free markets). It will still be pricey and some won't be able to afford it, but it won't be prohibitively expensive.
I agree with part of that. You buy insurance before you have a problem, then you have a problem, then it doesn't seem right for an insurer to wean you off that insurance even though you are faithfully paying the premiums. That's the moral way of looking at it. What does the contract say, though? I buy other insurance for a set price, for a set term, with no guarantee of renewal of coverage. I'm assuming what happened to you is you and your wife bought into group coverages, and the company came to you upon renewal and said, sorry, we aren't offering this plan anymore, which puts you and every one else in that group looking for insurance somewhere else, only now you have a pre-existing condition. You paid into the health insurance system all these years, but a different company treats you like a new customer, and you get no credit for being a customer of the other insurer. It's @#$%ed up, I admit, especially for someone like you, who pays plenty of taxes to subsidize other people's medical care and is responsible enough to pay whatever premium is demanded by the insurer in order to continue to be covered. I'd be frustrated, too.
Having said that, put yourself in the seat of the insurer. If you are a for profit company you want to dump losing business, and if that means dumping everyone in your risk pool because there are too many expensive people in that pool, then that is the obvious choice, and I'm betting it's what happened to you. That sucks, but that's business. The insurer is in business to make money for the owner (stockholders), not to be beneficent.
And as for negotiating drug prices, I do understand the free market. In order for you to get cost concessions from a company for a product you must have, period, you have to be able to put something on the table. If they sell their product for a lower price, per dose, are you able to offer them more customers who will buy more doses than they currently sell?
If I was the only game in town, and you came to me and wanted big price concessions, and couldn't offer me any extra volume of sales, I'd politely turn you down. After all, you have to buy my stuff....there is not substitute.
Remember this guy?
Who is Martin Shkreli - 'the most hated man in America'? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34331761)
With all due respect (and I do respect you) you are ill informed about how buying groups work. We are talking about very large groups like AARP for example. Much larger groups than the State of Texas. (About 15,000 people FYI).
And not groups with everybody having the same problems. Diverse groups.
The issue for people like me is specific to individual policies and the protectionist market laws around them.
One, because you are healthy, you don't have the complete picture. I'm also guessing you don't buy your own insurance. (E.g., you have employer provided group insurance.)
Nope. Been in the individual market for 20 years. Every time I see my agent (not often) he tells me what a great plan I have and how cheap it is compared to everything else available, and why I shouldn't consider getting something else instead. Doesn't really feel like it, though.
Did you know that the law takes away my choice to participate in a group policy? Why is that?
I did not know that.
You haven't lived it. You haven't researched it.
If you did you would know that Remicade is $7k in Wyoming but $25k here in Texas. But I can't buy it from Wyoming. Why is that?
That's extremely @#$%ed up. You ought to be able to have that FedExed to you from Wyoming. I don't understand why the same stuff would be priced so differently. Are you telling me that insurers in Wyoming negotiate that much better than Texas insurers? If so, we need to fire our folks and poach the WY negotiators.
If you want to live in your Darwinian fantasy, go live as a mountain man. We live in the most advanced, most prosperous country in history. We had a system that worked. In other words, it's not an economic or ideological theory.
It worked before the ACA. Was it a Libertarian wet dream? (BTW, I'm a Libertarian) no. But it worked.
I'd be satisfied with just wiping out ObamaCare altogether, which saves the taxpayers from subsidizing millions of people and saves the taxpayer from completely carrying millions more who got the golden ticket of Medicaid coverage. It's the replace part that is concerning. The only real proposal Trump had to bring down costs was to eliminate the state lines around insurance policy sales. Given your example of the price disparity for your drug, I can see how that might make more of an impact than I thought.
SQUIRMIN VERMIN 84
03-27-2017, 2:20am
Good discussion in this thread.....
I'd be satisfied with just wiping out ObamaCare altogether, which saves the taxpayers from subsidizing millions of people and saves the taxpayer from completely carrying millions more who got the golden ticket of Medicaid coverage. It's the replace part that is concerning. The only real proposal Trump had to bring down costs was to eliminate the state lines around insurance policy sales. Given your example of the price disparity for your drug, I can see how that might make more of an impact than I thought.
One thing the government can do is immediately end the law that requires all drugs sold in the USA to be bought through distribution. At this time no matter how big your company, hospital or pharmacy is you have to buy through a distributor. This along could reduce drug cost nearly 50% just from taking out the middle man.
Jeff '79
03-27-2017, 6:13am
One thing the government can do is immediately end the law that requires all drugs sold in the USA to be bought through distribution. At this time no matter how big your company, hospital or pharmacy is you have to buy through a distributor. This along could reduce drug cost nearly 50% just from taking out the middle man.
Another is to allow insurers to cross state lines and create competition instead of us being relegated to just a few, price fixing monopolists.
Another is to allow insurers to cross state lines and create competition instead of us being relegated to just a few, price fixing monopolists.
Here's my short list of things that will move the needle quickly for cost reduction. Not in any particular order.
1) Tort reform
2) Allow people to buy polices that meet thier needs
3) Change drug distribution laws
4) Allow anyone and everyone to have an HSA
5) Individuals are responsible for their day to day costs of HC.
SnikPlosskin
03-27-2017, 6:58pm
Here's my short list of things that will move the needle quickly for cost reduction. Not in any particular order.
1) Tort reform
2) Allow people to buy polices that meet their needs
3) Change drug distribution laws
4) Allow anyone and everyone to have an HSA
5) Individuals are responsible for their day to day costs of HC.
6) Term limits
ft laud mike
03-27-2017, 8:24pm
:rofl:
If you really want to get down to brass tacks, the US has socialized medicine anyway, even w/o Obama Care.
cocksuckers want free stuff, cocksuckers comprise 55% of the US population...they get free shit for their vote. I get to pay 200% extra to support cocksuckers...
see how that goes?
"Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."
~Robert A. Heinlein, To Sail Beyond the Sunset (1987) pg 223
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/07/there-is-never-a-free-market-in-health-care/#65f0e9bf1147
Interesting read from Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/07/there-is-never-a-free-market-in-health-care/#65f0e9bf1147
Interesting read from Forbes.
Forbes won't let me read the article because I have an adblocker running. F_ck you Forbes!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/07/there-is-never-a-free-market-in-health-care/#65f0e9bf1147
Interesting read from Forbes.
save you a click:
Opinion #Medicine
MAR 7, 2017 @ 10:00 AM 44,703 VIEWS
There Is Never A 'Free Market' In Health Care
Chris Ladd , CONTRIBUTOR
A recovering Republican.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Hospital bands that say 'I will lose my healthcare if you vote to repeal' are displayed during a town hall on the Affordable Care Act National Day of Action. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
“Where it is impossible to create the conditions necessary to make competition effective, we should resort to other methods of guiding economic activity.”
-Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p.37
Republicans still struggle to promote a credible ownership culture largely because they refuse to wrestle honestly with the hard cases; the situations in which market forces fail to allocate value effectively. Medical care is probably the most frustrating example since it stubbornly resists market solutions and affects everyone deeply.
Health care is not a market. It lacks any of the vital features of a market. Treating health care like a market means living and dying without modern medicine. To advance a culture based on opportunity rather than government dependence, we need an alternative to state-owned health care that keeps key decisions in personal hands, preserves market triggers where appropriate, and rids us of the strangling influence of the massive federal bureaucracy. Republicans cannot do this without abandoning some cherished fantasies about the unquestionable, divinely-ordained righteousness of markets.
In a free market, goods and services are allocated through transactions based on mutual consent. No one is forced to buy from a particular supplier. No one is forced to engage in any transaction at all. In a free market, no transactions occur if a price cannot be agreed.
The medical industry exists almost entirely to serve people who have been rendered incapable of representing their own interests in an adversarial transaction. When I need health services I often need them in a way that is quite different from my desire for a good quality television or a fine automobile. As I lie unconscious under a bus, I am in no position to shop for the best provider of ambulance services at the most reasonable price. All personal volition is lost. Whatever happens next, it will not be a market transaction.
Insurance is the obvious solution. By agreeing to a transaction for insurance coverage at a time when I am healthy, I can in theory provide for my needs when I am ill. But an insurance-funded medical system means abandoning an unregulated free market for health care. The insurer-model creates a three-party managed market in which the patient has surrendered their buying power and much of their discretion to an entity whose interests are not aligned with their own. Insurance companies don’t bleed. Insurance companies don’t get pregnant. Insurance companies don’t get cancer. Insurance companies have certain needs and interests that will never line up squarely with their customers'. I cannot represent my own needs in a conflict with my insurance company when I am seriously ill. At the most critical moment I am at the mercy of an entity with interests at conflict with my own.
Despite the misaligned interests, an insurance-based health system can work quite well. Private insurance coverage is the method most of the world uses to deliver universal health care. But an insurance-driven system, even with private insurers and private health providers, cannot survive under unregulated, free market conditions.
We cannot maintain an insurance-based system of health care unless there is some force aligned with the consumer that has the superior authority and financial backing to hold the insurance providers to their end of the deal. As I lie under that bus in the road, what if my insurance company refuses to pay for my care? What if the insurer tried to intervene in my care to their own benefit instead of mine? What if the company with which I contracted for insurance services collapses and cannot pay for my medical care when I need it?
Absent a competent regulatory scheme, patients, at the moment in which they make their insurance purchase, have no way to be certain which provider will actually deliver on their promise. They will only discover the answer when their life, or the lives of their family members, depend on it. Under an insurance system without effective, powerful regulation, the market forces that would exist in a face to face transaction between consumer (patient) and supplier (doctor) disappear, replaced with a grim gamble in which the insurance company has every incentive to cheat.
Modern health care with all its fancy instruments, amazing methods, and success in extending life and happiness only exists because we started abandoning the free market in medicine a century ago. Go back to paying your doctor with chickens and your doctor will go back to being a part-timer who learned his craft from a book so he could augment his income from blacksmithing.
Does that mean we will eventually have to submit to a fully nationalized, single-payer health system controlled entirely by the federal government? No, the developed world includes a kaleidoscope of different approaches to health care from single-payer to almost exclusively private. They generally deliver better care at lower cost than ours. Alternatives to our broken system are proven, established, and readily available. So far, Republicans have refused to even look at them.
Less government does not necessarily mean more freedom. Lower taxes do not necessarily produce faster growth. It takes smart government to accomplish these goals. Sometimes it takes a government program, a new tax, and an intelligent regulatory scheme to free up the next wave of innovation and individual initiative.
One of the most frustrating obstacles to the growth of a broader entrepreneurship culture in the US is the structure of our health care system. It punishes innovators, chains employees to traditional work, and leaves millions of struggling Americans without access to care. We count on Republicans to deliver pragmatic, sensible solutions that foster a culture of business growth, but when it comes to health care Republicans are off their meds. Until the GOP is ready to move past their free market fundamentalist fantasies in health care and on other issues, our hopes of developing an ownership culture will remain stalled.
Chris Ladd, former GOP Precinct Committeeman, author of The Politics of Crazy and creator of PoliticalOrphans.
:type:
Forbes won't let me read the article because I have an adblocker running. F_ck you Forbes!
You know what's interesting about that? I have an adblocker, too. After about 5 various times of inadvertently clicking on a Forbes link and being told I can't view their stuff, now, I don't get that message any more. I guess they figure after a while, you just aren't going to turn your adblocker off, so they display the content.
boracayjohnny
03-28-2017, 1:04pm
Forbes won't let me read the article because I have an adblocker running. F_ck you Forbes!
I have my way of dealing with those wanting to unblock my adblocker; I don't look at their shit. I figure if I made it this far without reading their article, I'll make it a bit longer. Yea, I'm sure there's a way to go around their way but it's not worth my time. I might even get by without reading the article. :D
I have my way of dealing with those wanting to unblock my adblocker; I don't look at their shit. I figure if I made it this far without reading their article, I'll make it a bit longer. Yea, I'm sure there's a way to go around their way but it's not worth my time. I might even get by without reading the article. :D
That's been my approach as well. :D
:cheers:
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/621dez/in_the_united_states_this_is_what_1471449_of/
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.