Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide health care.

Get out of your mothers basement!

 

You -don't- support it, as proven by your actions.

 

The general Welfare refers to the welfare of the federal government and its operation, and not to the people.

Derp.

 

That's because you have no basis for determining what is a a right and what isn't. You think government entitlements are "rights".

So you are ok if the police says they aren't going to protect protests because it costs too much and isn't reasonable? Defense of the right to free speech has to be "reasonable" for the government to spend money to protect it?

No misconceptions. Just reasoned, consistent application of the founding principles!

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

I did *not* say any such thing!

You are the one that said people wouldn't have to participate in the single-payer system if they didn't want to. Well, paying taxes for the single-payer system *IS* participating in it! So it was *YOUR* assertion that led to those who don't want to participate not haveing to pay taxes!

No, you will be paying for massive government inefficiency! Why do you think the proposals allowing veterans to use private health care are being made? It certainly isn't because of the efficiency of government workers!

All the single payer system will produce is more corruption and more fraudulent payments being made! Just like with all other government programs! The costs will be higher than *any* savings.

Then why did you misconstrue it when *I* used it?

Oh, MALARKY! I asked you a direct question. And you are *still* avoiding answering it!

Of course it was control of business and capital in Mussolini's time. You are trying to conflate what Mussolini did to people as a dictator with the economic impacts of Fascism. What do you think "making the trains run on time" is referring to? Jailing opposition leaders?

One more use of the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal.

Why don't you show where my assertion concerning the phases of Marxism are wrong?

My guess is that you can't!

Mussolini was a RABID socialist before he came to power, a follower of Marx's philosophies. After his ascent to power he figured out that Fascism provided him far more control of the economy with far less responsibility than Socialism would.

Of course you don't know what you are talking about. You never do. You can't even get recent history correct.

There is a difference between actually knowing facts and supporting them and in just repeating the same idiotic claim over and over again as if that actually proves anything!

 

You know he's trolling you, right?

 

it's WAY different. And yes, as I showed you, we ration care.

uh, it isn't an individual choice that insurance won't pay for a liver transplant, or experimental treatment.

I didn't, I didn't I didn't. lol

lol

you are confusing answering, with you liking the answer. You were answered. That you don't like it, is irrelevant.

so you can't support your claim. Thank you.

no need to lie. I've explained why in dozens of posts. A TV is a commodity. You can research it, price shop, test them out, and decide to buy or not buy. No so with healthcare. You get hit by a car, you are going to nearest ER and you will be treated by whatever means the physicians feel necessary, or you die. You have a stroke, or heart attack, you go to the nearest ER, and you are treated by whatever means the physicians feel necessary, or you die. That's not a commodity.

no it can't. You are limited by your proximity to the ER. If your chosen or preferred ER is 2 counties over, you are going to the nearest ER. You can't tell EMS to take a 45 minute joy ride so you can go to your preferred ER.

no, it is not healthcare. It is elective surgery, and that's why it's not covered by insurance.

claiming I haven't is a demonstrable lie.

 

you understand people can read what he posts, and can see that he is in fact saying, what the other poster said he did right?

 

lol, just because you are losing this debate, doesn't mean I live in my mothers basement.

 

Are they then obligated to actually practice medicine? If so for how long? What happens when someone decided that being a doctor isn't their cup of tea after all?

 

Of course he is. But he doesn't like it what people point it out in big, bold, red letters!

 

The only one losing here is you. I hope you like showing off your inability to reason to everyone because it just comes shining through!

 

Just saying it is different is meaningless. You need to show *HOW* it is different!

And we don't ration care, we offer individual choice. If an individual decides to ration himself then it is an individual's decision, not a decision by the market.

This really *is* simple. You just don't want to admit it because it undercuts your position!

The insurance you carry *is* an individual choice. It is an individual choice if you will or will not pay for what your insurance doesn't cover. It's ALL on you and no one else.

You think it is *funny* that you can't refute anything? Is is not funny, it is PATHETIC.

No, you didn't answer! Period.

I gave you the quote from webmd. If you don't consider the statement ""The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer" to be support of my claim then you are beyond help!

1. Saying something else is a commodity is *NOT* showing that health care is not a commodity.
2. I can research, price shop, and decide whether to buy or not buy almost anything in health care. It's harder to try things out but you can't really do that if you buy a TV on Amazon either.
3. Again, if you are lucid and stabilized after the accident you can specify where you want to go. Your claim is just wrong.
4. If the TV you buy at a garage sale because it is cheap doesn't work, then you throw it away. So how is that any different?

All I can tell you is what the EMT's told me. If you are lucid and stabilized then you *can* choose where you want to go. And they *will* take a 45 minute joy ride because they GET PAID FOR IT! Once again, you simply do not know what you are talking about!

Do you *ever* get tired of just blowing smoke in an authoritative way? My wife had reconstructive cosmetic surgery after her treatment for breast cancer. The insurance paid for it (dropping the mic)!

You *continue* to just repeat the same claim over and over. You have provided proof of nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

I've heard it said many times that when it comes to new drugs, the second one to come off the assembly line costs 10 cents. But the first one was $4 Billion.

Now, that is a number that could be drastically reduced with some well needed FDA reforms. As an example, I was told by a pharma rep that once a drug is approved, NOTHING about the manufacturing process can change without reapproval, even when they lose their patent and generics become available. This means if a 1987 computer by a company that no longer exists was used to count the pills as they went down the assembly line, if you want to produce a generic version of the drug, you either have to find a working model of that exact computer or get FDA approval to use a different one. Dumb.

 

If you support Medicare then what is your fix for 2028 when it goes bankrupt and inflows of taxes won't cover the outflows of benefits?

Are you just going to tell seniors they will have to start paying for half of their medical costs instead of 20%?

 

You won't get any better treatment under nationalized health care. If you don't qualify under the QALY metric you *will* be sent home to die so you won't be on the government's balance sheet when you die.

United Healthcare didn't determine if you got treated or not. They only determined if they were going to pay for it. *YOU* still had the choice of whether to get the treatment or not!

 

Why do you pretend that Medicare will go bankrupt, and under your hypothetical, what do you plan to do about the 40,000,000 + Americans covered by it? I'm interested in the alternative that you have contrived.

Of course, Medicare now covers only the most expensive demographic - 65+ years of age and disabled - and incrementally adding less-costly demographics into the risk poll obviously reduces the per capita cost.

Being able to eliminate that $250 billion tax write-off federal subsidy that sustains employer-administered plans and imposes a bureaucratic burden on private businesses would be an added bonus.

Pretending that the US is incapable of achieving what all advanced nations have achieved - covering everyone at far lower cost - is unjustifiably defeatist. We're up to the challenge.

Since they can all do it, we can do it even better!

 

lol, a rather odd and deluded statement.

yes, reality tends to baffle conservatives, when they are faced with it.

 

......

 

lol, flank steak or ribeye is TOTALLY different than choosing healthcare. What is wrong with you?

nope, we ration care.

nope. An individual has no choice when an insurance company declines to allow their insured to have a procedure. Unless of course you think everyone has an extra few hundred thousand dollars lying around.

It isn't simple. Healthcare is ****ing complicated as hell, and doesn't operate in a free market system, subject to supply and demand. It's literally life and death.

nope. Insurance policies have specific coverages. They cover specific things. They don't cover everything, and some of the things they do cover, they don't have to pay for, if they feel the patient is "undeserving". Such as the elderly alcoholic waiting for a liver transplant.

I've refuted every argument you made.

of course I did

yes, 2 specific cancer survival rates. Single payer systems, surpass us in every category. You are cherry picking 2 specific types of cancer.

true. Which is why I showed you why it isn't a commodity.

nope, as I've shown.

of course you can. You can run down to best buy, look at the specific model you want and try it out. then go home and order from amazon and save $200.

nope. You can't make EMS take you on a 2 hour joy ride to your preferred ER. You are going to the closest center to you.

This doesn't make any sense, or is in any way related to healthcare.

they didn't tell you that. Or, they meant they will take you to a hospital within a certain radius of you.

no, they don't get paid to take you there. They are paid for being on shift. They are not going to waste their time (tax payer money) to take you on a joy ride to your hospital of choice, 2 counties over. This leaves their station and territory they are responsible for short handed or empty all together.

Your medical insurance did not pay for it. You may have had a supplemental cancer plan. I used to sell those. They were made SPECIFICALLY because health insurance does not cover cosmetic surgery, like breast reconstruction. health insurance covers a mastectomy, not reconstruction.

 

What pretending? It's right there in the Trustee's report!

2028 is the estimated date for all the IOU's to run out which are being used to prop the system up today. At least a 25% cut in benefits will be seen. Since the system only pays 80% of medical costs today, a drop of 25% will take it down to only paying 60% of benefits!

I'm not the one trying to say the Medicare system is not in trouble! Why should I come up with the solution. If *YOU* think it is doing fine then it is *YOU* that needs to come up with the additional funding!

So what? We spend about $3.5T on healthcare today. Where is the funding for that going to come from? Higher taxes? Higher taxes on who?

Really? What happens when lots of businesess shutter because they can no longer afford to stay in business? Just how much of a revenue drop will that cause?

We can only do it by implementing the same kind of rationing the other systems do. Do you *really* think the American people are going to accept that?

Again, only by doing the same kind of rationing!

 

Do you expect 55,000,000+ Americans now under Medicare to be without coverage and added to the 22,000,000 under 65 for whom Republicans plan to eliminate coverage and, at the same time, wish to perpetuate the $250 billion annual taxpayer subsidy for the privileged whose employers must endure the bureaucratic burden?

Of course, the bloated medical expenses that the roughly 80,000,000 uninsured Americans then incur will be routinely dumped on the taxpayer.

It really sounds as if, in your ideological zealotry that compels you to summarily reject the far more successful paradigm of all advanced nation, you have not pragmatically considered the consequences.

How does the US meet the challenge? My suggestion is to pragmatically adopt the approach that has been repeatedly demonstrated to cover everyone far cheaper. - Eliminate the profiteers' multiple executive salaries, marketing and advertising budgets, political lobbying expenses, profit margins, repeatedly duplicated payrolls, clerical functions, infrastructures, etc., realize the actuarial ideal of maximizing the risk pool, advantage the benefits of economy of scale, and emulate what has been shown works far better in covering all at a much lower cost. And an inclusive Medicare would wield enormous negotiating power with Big Pharma - so that Americans would pay as little as Europeans for their Rx.

Will the special interests that grab a sizable chunk out of every health care dollar resist mightily and allocate a sizable portion of their accumulated wealth to preserving their huge cash cow? Of course.


What is your solution?

 

It depends on where you live and what their procedures are, but for Los Angeles County:

How do ambulance personnel decide which hospital to deliver the patient to?

As with other counties nationwide, Los Angeles ambulances go to the closest hospital best geared for the treatment being sought. "Not each hospital is created equal for emergency care," she says.

There are 72 hospitals in L.A. County approved to receive patients traveling by ambulance in response to a 911 call. These hospitals are categorized by Chidester's department based on where and whether they fit into one of four areas of clinical need.

Accident victims are taken to hospitals best suited to treat trauma. Other patients go to designated hospitals that treat stroke victims, heart attacks and children. Cases that don't fall into any of these four areas are taken to the closest hospital with a licensed emergency room.

"These are all hospitals that have agreements with us and have committed that they would provide a certain level of care and education to their staff and have specific equipment available," she says.

So, for example, if you're having chest pain, the paramedics will take you to the nearest hospital with the equipment, expertise and facilities to treat heart attack patients, even if there's another hospital closer by. This policy improves the patient's odds of survival and leads to better results, she says.

But what if I want to go to a different hospital?

You do have the right to request a particular hospital. If it won't jeopardize your condition, the paramedics can honor your request to be taken to the hospital of your choice — as long as it does not take them too far out of their service area.

However, if the paramedics believe it will put you in danger, they will stand firm. Patients can still insist, at which point they'll need to sign a waiver stating they demand to be taken to a particular hospital against medical advice. But Chidester says: "I wouldn't advise that."
​

 

It occurs to me that everyone pushing a government health care program is focused on the symptom rather that the cause. Typical of how government like to operate i know.

Instead of the band aid approach "we must cover everyone because it is the right of the people", how about we ask "WHY" these people don't have coverage and address that issue?

I think we already know many of the the why's. We don't want to address them because that would mean empowering people.

 

Beyond the fact that it is unaffordable for many?

 

Coverage and cost are separate (related) issues. An empowered person is going to help on both fronts. Cost issues can be addressed without a government provider program.

I am neither for or against a single payer system in theory. What i am for is better system.