The never-ending POTUS Election thread....

[Hoofbite]

You’re making it sound as if we’re functioning like a banana republic. If the high quality/High Tech capabilities we have weren’t being used to good effect, the costs would not be high. Laparoscopic procedures, nuclear medicine, PET Scans, etc, these things are being put to good use very day and you’re painting a picture of some bombed out third world clinic.

Not at all. We have great resources, but the outcomes don't match. That's all I am saying. We overpay for what we get. Infant mortality rate is embarrassing for the amount of resources the US has. It's worse than Cuba and the entirety of the European Union. You simply cannot look at what the US pays for healthcare relative to the rest of the world and ignore the lack of results.

If I’m not mistaken, you work in a hospital, correct? Is this hospital withholding the use of it’s resources while people suffer? You don’t witness the success of years of research and development?

No hospital would because they are legally bound to treat in some cases. That's part of the point I was trying to make earlier. Hospitals cannot turn down someone with a life-threatening emergency. They treat regardless of the prospect of reimbursement. The consequence of that is everyone else has to get billed more because hospitals cannot operate at a loss. What the hell would any industry do if 10% of the customers they were forced to serve couldn't afford to pay? They'd recover the costs from the 90% who can.

I think you’re confusing immediate need with urgency. The average persons immediate needs are food and shelter; it’s why we work and generally what our lives center around: these basic necessities. Urgent care is something different and not in every body’s line of sight, moment by moment. We have Medical Centers, with Call Centers who can respond to almost any health catastrophe as it happens. As you’ve already stated, it’s provided for. What exactly is the discussion in terms of forcing us to pay more for routine medical coverage?

This is going a bit off topic more than I intended. I was simply pointing out that people can survive without eating for a period of time that far exceeds someone's ability to survive without medical care for a number of conditions.

I wouldn’t dream of denigrating our great success in terms of healthcare by making it another inept government agency. Unfortunately I’m not in control and no amount if sound reason will convince the people in control to keep their hands off of it. If I have any complaint, it’s with the almost total rejection of some alternative medicines and therapies and the insurance companies refusal to participate in them.

It doesn't have to be a government agency. People who's healthcare is currently funded through tax dollars aren't relegated to hospitals run by a government agency. Nobody is promoting a single provider healthcare system. It wouldn't be the end of private healthcare systems and probably wouldn't even be the end of private insurance.

We’re having this discussion because these very same people are interested in greater and greater in-roads into our very day lives and making excuses to raise taxes. There’s no altruism in these attempts to drag down our health care system.

But you can't say that's what would happen because it's not supported by what happens elsewhere.

The tax issue side is undeniable. Taxes would increase to cover it, but you already pay taxes for other people's healthcare and after that you then have to go out and buy your own healthcare. If people could avoid paying premiums, they would undoubtedly take home more money. If it were called anything other than a tax people wouldn't even give a shit because the bottom line is more money taken home.

The key findings from the survey, conducted from January through June 2015, include a modest increase (4%) in the average premiums for both single and family coverage in the past year. The average annual single coverage premium is $6,251 and the average family coverage premium is $17,545.

EHBS 2015 – Summary Of Findings – 8775 | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Any person who makes $62K/year, and any family that brings in $170K/year has a cost equal to 10% of their income in just premiums. Now, this cost is split between employer and employee in most cases, but even with a very generous split in favor of the employee Americans are still paying a good percentage of their income for premiums.

Taxes. Premiums. Both get deducted before you ever see a fucking dime.

The argument can basically be boiled down to:

I'll take a greater cost in premiums over a lesser cost in taxes for reasons that aren't supported by data gathered across the world, and because taxes are evil.

 

[dbair1967]

Not propping anything up. The VA covers people who require specialized care for things that normal people don't usually have to deal with.

It is what it is. The VA is massively underfunded in terms of healthcare. You can find their healthcare budget online at $65B. 10 million enrolled, IIRC. That's $6,500 per person, which is $2,000 less than the per capita for the entirety of the US, and 10 to 12% of the population isn't even covered by any plan.

It is?

They seem to be paying bonuses out at record levels.

Its a sickening, lousy, pathetic example of why government should not be involved in healthcare.

Veterans care should have been privatized YEARS, maybe decades ago.

 

[VTA]

Not at all. We have great resources, but the outcomes don't match. That's all I am saying. We overpay for what we get. Infant mortality rate is embarrassing for the amount of resources the US has. It's worse than Cuba and the entirety of the European Union. You simply cannot look at what the US pays for healthcare relative to the rest of the world and ignore the lack of results.

It's a good argument, but I wouldn't take it at face value. A lot of this is due more to social dysfunction than can be attributed to the general state of our system.

The infant mortality rate is high among poor and single mothers. Out of wedlock births with no father figure creates an entire demographic of disadvantaged persons, that unfairly reflects poorly on our system. Again these comparisons of sheer numbers don't tell the whole story. What is the rate of single-parent households in those nations that have a better mortality rate? Are they comparable? There are always other factors that are not mentioned.

I don't want to sidetrack into social/moral issues, but something to keep in mind is there are consequences for living by your passions in the moment without concern for what comes after. The effects aren't singular and localized.

It doesn't have to be a government agency.

By the looks of the ACA it certainly has become just like other government agencies. I'm forced to buy something or be penalized.

No hospital would because they are legally bound to treat in some cases. That's part of the point I was trying to make earlier. Hospitals cannot turn down someone with a life-threatening emergency. They treat regardless of the prospect of reimbursement. The consequence of that is everyone else has to get billed more because hospitals cannot operate at a loss. What the hell would any industry do if 10% of the customers they were forced to serve couldn't afford to pay? They'd recover the costs from the 90% who can.

The tax issue side is undeniable. Taxes would increase to cover it, but you already pay taxes for other people's healthcare and after that you then have to go out and buy your own healthcare. If people could avoid paying premiums, they would undoubtedly take home more money. If it were called anything other than a tax people wouldn't even give a shit because the bottom line is more money taken home.

True and understood, but how would a Universal system change this fact? Either way, the money has to be recovered and it'll come in the form of costs in the market place or higher taxes and worse government intervention. Which, as we see has already had negative effects. A ridiculously created a law which requires you have healthcare or face a penalty, higher deductibles and of course, higher taxes to pay for the implementation.

But you can't say that's what would happen because it's not supported by what happens elsewhere.

It already has here and that's all that really matters. The government has over-reached it's authority by imposing it's own standards on certain plans, causing people to have to switch. Remember the whole 'if you like your plan you can keep it' debacle? On top of force feeding it to people who don't want it (as if that weren't enough) it''s handled like total shit. And costly. If I was paying to make up for the charity cases before, I'm paying more now because of government involvement. The facts fly full in the face of all presented arguments. We Pay More Now.

As for other countries, there's no evidence that this thing helps an economy. The European nations that have it are almost all in recession with economic troubles. I won't say it's their healthcare system, but i would say it sure doesn't help.

The bottom line is this, as it we seem to be in agreement about: we're going to pay either way.
a The only question is who are we going to pay. I'd rather put my trust in the free market than in a consistently proven corrupt political class. I'd rather defang them at every turn, giving as little influence over the necessities of our daily lives as possible. Nothing good ever comes from an all presiding government.

 

[Hoofbite]

It is?

They seem to be paying bonuses out at record levels.

Its a sickening, lousy, pathetic example of why government should not be involved in healthcare.

Veterans care should have been privatized YEARS, maybe decades ago.

They wouldn't have received care if it had been privatized. Insurance companies (up until a few years ago) were allowed to filter their risk pool by rejecting people for preexisting conditions.

Physical disability and psychological trauma are both expensive. If they would have even offered the disabled and psychologically scarred a policy in the first place, it would have come at a price that nobody could afford.

 

[Hoofbite]

It's a good argument, but I wouldn't take it at face value. A lot of this is due more to social dysfunction than can be attributed to the general state of our system.

The infant mortality rate is high among poor and single mothers. Out of wedlock births with no father figure creates an entire demographic of disadvantaged persons, that unfairly reflects poorly on our system. Again these comparisons of sheer numbers don't tell the whole story. What is the rate of single-parent households in those nations that have a better mortality rate? Are they comparable? There are always other factors that are not mentioned.

I don't want to sidetrack into social/moral issues, but something to keep in mind is there are consequences for living by your passions in the moment without concern for what comes after. The effects aren't singular and localized.

Poverty and family structure likely play a role but it's not like poverty is just an American problem. I'd bet a number of countries with lower infant mortality rates have a greater percentage of their population living in poverty.

By the looks of the ACA it certainly has become just like other government agencies. I'm forced to buy something or be penalized.

Like roads, schools, policemen, firefighters, public transportation, and myriad of other things.

True and understood, but how would a Universal system change this fact? Either way, the money has to be recovered and it'll come in the form of costs in the market place or higher taxes and worse government intervention. Which, as we see has already had negative effects. A ridiculously created a law which requires you have healthcare or face a penalty, higher deductibles and of course, higher taxes to pay for the implementation.

Universal system changes that because it ensures reimbursement.

Imagine if fire departments were privatized but held to the same standard in that they couldn't refuse to put out someone's fire. Now, imagine that the cost of having fire department insurance was influenced by the 1/6 people who don't carry fire department insurance. You're okay with paying more for your insurance because someone else decides not to pay at all?

Would anyone support such a system? That's essentially what the healthcare system is faced with. 16.7% of the non-elderly were uninsured in 2013. Some may get penalized but there are exemptions that cover any person who's premiums would consume more than like 9% (I think) of their income.

As for other countries, there's no evidence that this thing helps an economy. The European nations that have it are almost all in recession with economic troubles. I won't say it's their healthcare system, but i would say it sure doesn't help.

The bottom line is this, as it we seem to be in agreement about: we're going to pay either way.
a The only question is who are we going to pay. I'd rather put my trust in the free market than in a consistently proven corrupt political class. I'd rather defang them at every turn, giving as little influence over the necessities of our daily lives as possible. Nothing good ever comes from an all presiding government.

I wouldn't expect it to inherently help their economy in any way just as I wouldn't expect the US healthcare system to do the same. Not like the US economy is insulated from struggles.

As far as the free market aspect, the healthcare system as a whole could possibly (and using very loose terms) be called a free market. For consumers, the ability to shop around for the best price is nearly non-existent. For providers, negotiating prices with consumers is non-existent. Close to half of the country's healthcare is funded through taxes. There is zero price transparency in that billed amounts are nowhere near reimbursement amounts. The statement your policy writer sends you about how much they have "saved" you is nowhere near a reflection of what they actually paid for the service.

Go into any pharmacy and ask the cash price for any medication. This price will be insanely higher than what the pharmacy will actually receive from any insurance company and there isn't a chance in hell that you could pay the reimbursement amount as a cash customer.

Zero ability to determine the actual cost of anything, little ability to negotiate the stated price, and general lack of price control on behalf of the consumer. It's a fixed market.

 

[dbair1967]

They wouldn't have received care if it had been privatized. Insurance companies (up until a few years ago) were allowed to filter their risk pool by rejecting people for preexisting conditions.

.

HUH?

The government should have been paying the private insurance companies to handle this. The money wouldn't have been wasted and veterans wouldn't have suffered or died waiting for care, all while some VA execs banked millions and millions in bonuses. The veterans wouldn't have had to go fend for themselves looking for individual policies.

Medicare, Medicaid, VA. All government run. All massive, ridiculously wasteful failures. All basically bankrupt because of fraud, abuse and waste.

 

[cml750]

[video=youtube;azqKG6zqAbU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=azqKG6zqAbU[/video]

Sorry to post a funny but truthful video in a serious thread but sometimes it helps to keep the sanity. We are currently in the midst of the WORST administration in the HISTORY of this country. We have basically three candidates left. Hillary, the biggest liar in history, Sanders a socialist who would make Stalin jealous, and Trump who would say or do anything to be elected. I suppose Trump is the lesser of three evils but I am not completely sold. It may be the first presidential election for which I refuse to participate in my adult life.

 

[peplaw06]

What the fuck good does it do to just not vote? Serious question.

 

[jnday]

The less federal government , the better. The Feds should only be involved in defense. States should handle their own business.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

[video=youtube;azqKG6zqAbU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=azqKG6zqAbU[/video]

Sorry to post a funny but truthful video in a serious thread but sometimes it helps to keep the sanity. We are currently in the midst of the WORST administration in the HISTORY of this country. We have basically three candidates left. Hillary, the biggest liar in history, Sanders a socialist who would make Stalin jealous, and Trump who would say or do anything to be elected. I suppose Trump is the lesser of three evils but I am not completely sold. It may be the first presidential election for which I refuse to participate in my adult life.

Trump at his worst will be better than Crooked Hillary at her best.

 

[VTA]

Poverty and family structure likely play a role but it's not like poverty is just an American problem. I'd bet a number of countries with lower infant mortality rates have a greater percentage of their population living in poverty.

From what I remember when I was reading on this a few weeks ago, The U.S. takes the cake for single parent homes.
I’m too lazy to look again.

Like roads, schools, policemen, firefighters, public transportation, and myriad of other things.

I wouldn’t dream of denigrating our great success in terms of healthcare by making it another inept government agency.

It doesn't have to be a government agency.

Beyond that, health care is far too critically personal to compare it to paving pot holes, and handing out speeding tickets.

Universal system changes that because it ensures reimbursement.

Imagine if fire departments were privatized but held to the same standard in that they couldn't refuse to put out someone's fire. Now, imagine that the cost of having fire department insurance was influenced by the 1/6 people who don't carry fire department insurance. You're okay with paying more for your insurance because someone else decides not to pay at all?

Would anyone support such a system? That's essentially what the healthcare system is faced with. 16.7% of the non-elderly were uninsured in 2013. Some may get penalized but there are exemptions that cover any person who's premiums would consume more than like 9% (I think) of their income.

Huh? That’s my entire argument against it. I’m paying more because others aren’t covered. The tangible results are now. I’m paying out my ass this year because of the ACA which by design is covering people who don’t pay for insurance.

I wouldn't expect it to inherently help their economy in any way just as I wouldn't expect the US healthcare system to do the same. Not like the US economy is insulated from struggles.

As far as the free market aspect, the healthcare system as a whole could possibly (and using very loose terms) be called a free market. For consumers, the ability to shop around for the best price is nearly non-existent. For providers, negotiating prices with consumers is non-existent.

Mainly because people are unaware that they can. Recently a friend did just that with a major sports medicine surgeon. He negotiated between the surgeon and the insurance company the price of his surgery and how much he would be obligated to pay. He couldn't have gone through with it if they couldn't agree on that.

Close to half of the country's healthcare is funded through taxes.

Where do you get that from?

There is zero price transparency in that billed amounts are nowhere near reimbursement amounts. The statement your policy writer sends you about how much they have "saved" you is nowhere near a reflection of what they actually paid for the service.

Go into any pharmacy and ask the cash price for any medication. This price will be insanely higher than what the pharmacy will actually receive from any insurance company and there isn't a chance in hell that you could pay the reimbursement amount as a cash customer.

Zero ability to determine the actual cost of anything, little ability to negotiate the stated price, and general lack of price control on behalf of the consumer. It's a fixed market.

lI’m not sure how guaranteeing pseudo-free health care for people who don’t have it will change these practices. Are suggesting that a government run agency is going to afford more transparency? The evidence that this is how our government works is… ?

Government provides no transparency of any kind and is peopled and run by constantly exposed whores, paying tribute to their biggest donors.

If any polemic against government regulation exists look no further than auto insurance, which is insanely tilted in favor for the insurance company despite being regulated: Year upon year, you’re forced to buy auto insurance (at least in my state); thousands of dollars in, you’ve paid Allstate enough to send your agents kid to an ivy league college. One accident and your rates rise. You weren’t paying all those years to cover your ass in just such an event, no, you were simply being made a commodity. One that is to be punished for thinking your insurance was intended to cover the damages. This is a regulated industry. By the government. No thanks.

 

[VTA]

I'll have to be honest, shit like this nudges more toward supporting Trump. Democrats are pure scumbags.

Link

A mob of protesters outside the Donald Trump campaign rally in San Jose, California physically assaulted a female Trump supporter, pinning her up against a building and pelting her with eggs and other objects.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

I'll have to be honest, shit like this nudges more toward supporting Trump.

Same here. I don't trust Trump, but it is funny to see the left, who have had their way forever now, this upset about not getting their way.

I do think there will be incredible unrest and I'm afraid outright violence if Trump wins. This is what you get when you teach people that "by any means necessary" is an acceptable philosophy.

 

[SixisBetter]

I'm no Trump fan,but I've lost count of how many actual attacks there have been at his rallys.
After the Albuquerque cluster last week,many people called out these morons,including high ranking Latino officials.
I'm certainly casting a vote,and shit like this here is making me think give the asshole a shot.
Plus,fuck Hillary,I've heard that joke.

Anyway if you missed the Albuquerque thing,here's a link,and there's plenty more available:Mayor announces reward after violent night outside Trump rally | New Mexico News - KOAT Home

 

[Sheik]

If for no other reason, I would think conservatives almost have to vote for Trump just because of the potential SCOTUS nominations. What is it, 1 for sure and possibly as many as 4?

Also, I agree with whoever said these leftists are scum. Everyone wants to talk about Trump's language being dangerous. Go to one of his events, look at how vile the leftist protestors are.

Then go to a Hillary or Bernie rally and observe the protests of the right.

Who exactly is dangerous?

I'd love to hear the justification of a liberal democrat on this shit. All of this countrie's problems are personified in these riot like demonstrations. 100s of illegals waving the Mexican flag in America because they don't want the actual laws of a sovereign nation enforced? Really? That's what Democrats and liberals stand for. Chaos.

I'm all for being proud of heritage and the country you come from, but I don't see a place for this type of behavior from guests of this country. Illegal guests at that.

 

[SixisBetter]

All of this countrie's problems are personified in these riot like demonstrations.

Exactly my point.

 

[Midswat]

This election thing is still going on?

Who's favored? I'm too lazy and apathetic to do research myself.

 

[peplaw06]

https://electionbettingodds.com

 

[jnday]

There are more and more polls showing Trump beating Hillary. In some traditional democratic states , Trump is now tied or has a couple points lead on the bitch. As the realty of a Hillary presidency gets closer, voters are choosing Trump just because they hate her so much.

 

[Midswat]

https://electionbettingodds.com

Looks like Hillary has it locked up.

Fuck.