The Trump administration unveils a stealth attack on people with preexisting conditions

[dogs4thewin]

And since America is not going to let him die on the hospital steps as would, say, the Philippines, then taxpayers are going to pay for him anyway.

I would not want to live that way though people in pain dying on the streets mostly the in pain part. Just does not sound like a very good place to be.

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

I stated that people should help people, but not be FORCED into doing so, not that the poor should die and NOT that is what Jesus was sent to do.

That's nonsense. People have not been covered because of pre-existing conditions. You are supporting a system that costs us more and kills more people. Our healthcare system is objectively evil.

Give everyone healthcare that keeps them healthy, instead of forcing them to show up in the ER with stage four cancer that could easily have been caught early. They end up dead with a massive bill that we all pay for. The only people this serves is the insurance industry, one of the largest lobbying groups in the US. Lobbying is the legal term for buying politicians.

 

[Andrew77]

Healthcare is not equal to "all their free stuff."

But there are two things that we are already paying more for that people actually get in other countries, and that's health care and education.

We as individual taxpayers aren't saving a dime on either and are getting less.

Yeah it does equal free stuff. Are you getting a product or service without paying for it? Yes. Then yes, it does equal all their free stuff.

You factually not correct. We do pay more, and we pay more, generally because of government interference. The solution to higher prices due to government interference, is not more interference.

However, you are not correct that we get less of it. Particularly in education. Education is extremely clear cut. We get people coming to US higher education schools, from around the world. If you look at the top universities in the entire world, 14 of the top 20 schools, are all US based profit driven schools.

Government run schools, generally speaking, are terrible.

The difference is even worse in K-12, where private schools routinely destroy public schools in academics, and at the same time, have a fraction of the cost.

The solution isn't to eliminate schools that are doing better, for less money, in favor of public government schools that do less for more money.

Same is true of government hospitals and private hospitals. I would never go to a government hospital. They are terrible. The solution isn't to eliminate the private hospitals that are awesome, and force everyone to go crap government hospitals.

Like I said, my brother-in-law ex-marine, needed surgery on his hand. He waited almost a year to get health care from the government VA system, which costs billions of federal dollars to run. He finally said screw it, and went to a private doctor and was in with the surgery the week he called.

Our private care, is better than anywhere else in the world. Anywhere. You have a better chance of surviving cancer in this country, than in any other country in the world. That's a fact.

And by the way, we talk about medical tourism, and it's true that Americans go to other countries for care routinely. But it's not because we don't have treatments, which is why other people come here. People come here from other 1st world countries every single day. Because their socialized system doesn't care for them.

Our people go to other countries, only because of price. They can get service cheaper. But here's the kicker. Where do they go? Do they go to the socialized government run hospitals around the world? No. They don't. Socialized government run hospitals are terrible all over the world. They go to free-market capitalist pay-for-service hospitals around the world. They don't go to the government crap hospitals.

So even our medical tourism, proves government run health care is garbage, because our people are not going to government run hospitals.

 

[Andrew77]

That's nonsense. People have not been covered because of pre-existing conditions. You are supporting a system that costs us more and kills more people. Our healthcare system is objectively evil.

Give everyone healthcare that keeps them healthy, instead of forcing them to show up in the ER with stage four cancer that could easily have been caught early. They end up dead with a massive bill that we all pay for. The only people this serves is the insurance industry, one of the largest lobbying groups in the US. Lobbying is the legal term for buying politicians.

That is not true. Our system saves more lives than any other system in the world, which is a statistical fact. Our survival rates are higher than that of any where else.

If we adopted their system, we would have far more people dying.

Additionally, your claim about stage 4 cancer that could have been caught early is unbelievable wrong.

The US is the number one preventative care system in the world. And the reason is obvious. The cost of preventative care, is more expensive than just treating the people who get an illness.

It's less expensive to an individual, that's true. But to the government, it is cheaper to simply let people get cancer, and find it when they feel ill, than it is to give everyone preventative care, in the hopes of catching it early.

People around the world have far fewer mammograms, than here in the US. Or any other early detection.

We have the best system in the world. It's far worse than it was before Obama-Care was passed, but it is still the world leader.

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

That is not true. Our system saves more lives than any other system in the world, which is a statistical fact. Our survival rates are higher than that of any where else.

Source?

If we adopted their system, we would have far more people dying.

Source?

Additionally, your claim about stage 4 cancer that could have been caught early is unbelievable wrong.

You clearly have no idea what you are writing.

The US is the number one preventative care system in the world. And the reason is obvious. The cost of preventative care, is more expensive than just treating the people who get an illness.

It's less expensive to an individual, that's true. But to the government, it is cheaper to simply let people get cancer, and find it when they feel ill, than it is to give everyone preventative care, in the hopes of catching it early.

Are you being sarcastic or do I need to feel bad for you?

 

[Andrew77]

Source?



Source?



You clearly have no idea what you are writing.



Are you being sarcastic or do I need to feel bad for you?

Dude that's basic math.

See, you don't know who is going to get what illness. So take the flu shots. A flu shot is just $30 - $50 roughly. They have different flu shots that cost more for the elderly, than the regular flu shots for everyone else.

If you multiply out the cost of giving each person a flu shot, the cost is up near $10 to $15 Billion dollars.

The cost of dealing with people who have end up hospitalized with the flu, is barely $10 Billion dollars.

So that would seem like a wash. But it actually isn't a wash, because the flu shots can only provide benefits for the specific strain of flu they are designed for. And the government basically makes an educated guess as to what flu strain will be dominate the following year. And even if they guess right, that doesn't mean you won't get a different strain.

So while you might cut the cost of hospitalizations in half, it would still mean you are spending billions of dollars more... not less on health care.

Now again, if an individual wishes to spend the $30 to $50 out of their own pocket, to avoid a possible costly hospital visit... that makes sense. But for the government to provide it? No, that is a money losing idea, not a money saving idea.

And this is true universally of all preventative care.

Cost-savings vs. cost-effectiveness and preventative care

Numerous reports have detailed this. The only reason people fail to realize that preventative care is generally a money loser.... is because all those reports talk about "cost-effective". Cost effective, is not the same as cost-saving. Many preventative care measures are cost-effective. But they are not cost-saving. Just like a flu shot can be cost effective for an individual. Obviously if I spend $30 to avoid a $3,000 hospital visit, that is cost effective. Of course I have never had a flu shot, and never once gone to the hospital for the flu. Cost-effective, and cost-saving, are not the same.

Nevertheless, this is why the US spends more on preventative care than any other socialized health care system in the world.
Even pro-socialized Health Care groups, have no choice but to admit this.

Kind of a crappy pict, but I'll explain it.
Help with diet, exercise and physical activity. US was number one.
Help with getting people off smoking. US was number one.
Mammography screenings. US was number one.
Flu vaccs. US was number 3, but far far ahead of Canada, Sweden, France, Germany, Australia, and Norway. Only behind the UK and New Zealand, and only by a tiny margin.

As for higher survival rates.... name your cancer. Which one would you like me to look up?

All of the reports on this have always showed the same information, that the US survival rates were highest in the world.

US cancer survival rates remain among highest in world

This is doctor out of London, who is openly admitting the US has the best survival rates in the world. Do you need more evidence of that?

You clearly have no idea what you are writing.
Are you being sarcastic or do I need to feel bad for you?

No sir. I have been researching this topic for the last 15 years. I know exactly what I am saying, I know I am right, and I do not need you to feel anything for me. I am completely confident in the authority, accuracy, and validity of the empirical data I am presenting here.

If you wish to feel sorry for someone, pick the person who just got slammed with empirical evidence after suggesting the other didn't know what they are writing about. They seem to need the pity about now.

 

[Sparagmos]

Rule number one, if you are going to respond directly to what I say, you need to read exactly what I say. Especially if you are going to throw in some accusations against my character.
You “ahem” misrepresented the price of a happy meal in Denmark, unless it is 4 times the cost of a Big Mac:

You "ahem" didn't read where I specifically said "Danish if they would be willing to trade their $25 value meals at McDonalds"

Did I say Happy meal? Do you see "happy meal" in my words? No, you do not. Do you see "big mac" in my words? No you do not.

By the way, as one who worked at several fast food joints, I think big mac index is a very lousy way of determining anything. Everyone in the business knows that the burgers are not where the stores making their operating profit. It comes from the fries and drinks. If McDonald's only sold big macs, they would go out of business. But anyway.....

McDonald's in Denmark do indeed have value meals that are $15 to $16, at the base price. Meaning a large size meal, is upwards of $18 to $20, plus Denmarks 25% sales tax.

In other words, my original statement was dead on accurate.

Um, yes wages are profit. Of course they are.

I work for a company that builds-to-order computers for customers. I also do build-to-order computers for customers at home. I would assume that you believe that if I build a computer and sell it to a customer directly, that you admit this is profiting. Well if I sell to a customer indirectly, through my employer.... what's the difference? I'm still making a profit off of my labor, whether I sell directly to the customer, or indirectly through my employer. Both are profiting.

Are you suggesting that Warren Buffet is not profiting from his $100K salary?

Ok, I think I’m done with this convo. You are using a typo to make a snotty personal attack. A value meal isn’t $25 in Denmark. The latest Big Mac index shows them charging LESS for a Big Mac, so they don’t charge twice as much for a meal. And wages aren’t profit, if you think so, you have a very elementary understanding of business and economics. Profit is calculated after labor and operating costs are deducted. An example: non profit businesses still pay wages and salaries.

 

[Andrew77]

Ok, I think I’m done with this convo. You are using a typo to make a snotty personal attack. A value meal isn’t $25 in Denmark. The latest Big Mac index shows them charging LESS for a Big Mac, so they don’t charge twice as much for a meal. And wages aren’t profit, if you think so, you have a very elementary understanding of business and economics. Profit is calculated after labor and operating costs are deducted. An example: non profit businesses still pay wages and salaries.

You were insulting, and questioned my integrity, and now you are offended that I did not take kindly to it?

 

[Sparagmos]

Also could we not go back to that let people depend on other people's kindness whether than the law if they get into trouble.

Dogs, the last time we “let people depend on other people’s kindness” they were dying in the street. You need to address that point or drop it from your argument. And why don’t you do that for yourself. Get off Medicaid and let charities help you?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Dogs, the last time we “let people depend on other people’s kindness” they were dying in the street. You need to address that point or drop it from your argument. And why don’t you do that for yourself. Get off Medicaid and let charities help you?

How much of that is BECAUSE of the government I wonder. In other words, and I am not saying that you ( or any other particular person is like this, but how many people today feel that it is the government's "job" and therefore will not help out. One way to test that would be to go back to that. I am on Medicare ( which is different, moreover you have no idea how hard my parents had to fight me tooth and nail to get me to accept assistance.

 

[Sparagmos]

How much of that is BECAUSE of the government I wonder. In other words, and I am not saying that you ( or any other particular person is like this, but how many people today feel that it is the government's "job" and therefore will not help out. One way to test that would be to go back to that. I am on Medicare ( which is different, moreover you have no idea how hard my parents had to fight me tooth and nail to get me to accept assistance.

Sorry I thought you said you were on Medicaid. What kind of insurance do you have and what does it cost?

I already talked about what was going on at the time we had people dying on the streets. It was before the government started intervening so the cause was not people’s expectation that the government would intervene. We don’t need to try that again, it didn’t work. Do you know of a place where it does?

Finally, I ask again - why don’t you go off government assistance and let charities help you? Your parents can’t force you, can they?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Sorry I thought you said you were on Medicaid. What kind of insurance do you have and what does it cost?

I already talked about what was going on at the time we had people dying on the streets. It was before the government started intervening so the cause was not people’s expectation that the government would intervene. We don’t need to try that again, it didn’t work. Do you know of a place where it does?

Finally, I ask again - why don’t you go off government assistance and let charities help you? Your parents can’t force you, can they?

Medicare is different than Medicaid much better program ( mostly because more places take it.

If we are going to have government stuff ( because there are people who need help they need to have it as close to the PEOPLE as possible. This is why I say charities are better. They KNOW the people they know who needs help and who is just plain out not working.

You do have a point; although other than my monthly meds I do not really go to the doctor much anyway.

 

[Sparagmos]

Medicare is different than Medicaid much better program ( mostly because more places take it.

If we are going to have government stuff ( because there are people who need help they need to have it as close to the PEOPLE as possible. This is why I say charities are better. They KNOW the people they know who needs help and who is just plain out not working.

You do have a point; although other than my monthly meds I do not really go to the doctor much anyway.

You didn’t answer my question - why not go off of it if you don’t believe in it? You actually do believe in it I think...

 

[dogs4thewin]

You didn’t answer my question - why not go off of it if you don’t believe in it? You actually do believe in it I think...

I believe that people should help people I DO believe there is a place for government in that, but I believe in a limited government and that includes not having the government provide everything for everyone there has to be a certain level of personal accountability and of not running to the government every time you need something. I also believe that government assistance should be more limited in terms of cash benefits and more on food, actually housing clothes, but not giving people money food stamps to buy those things.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I agree. Comments made about the cost of government provided healthcare are mostly lies. The money we pay now for health insurance won't keep going to various insurance companies when we shift to a single pay system, but numbers are calculated as though we're paying for two systems so the numbers are inflated.

My former endocrinologist made $450,000 in incentives from pharmaceutical companies for an 18 month period. (Look up doctors at the Dollars For Docs web site.) These were paid to him from pharmaceutical companies. He gets paid to write prescriptions and promote certain medications. This is another thing that inflates the cost of medical care. There's a lot of unethical practices in the medical industry which make some people rich while the majority are paying for it. The hands-off approach has allowed this to happen. Investigate what your members of Congress for your area get in donations from medical and/or pharmaceutical companies. They don't want this to change so they feed us a bunch of nonsense to scare us.

Lots of folk don't want to pay for healthcare for others since they may not have a sickness or ailment at this time in their lives. 80% of my property tax bills goes toward the public school system. I have no children in public school so why should I pay for that? If I'm in a traffic accident and the other person does not have insurance I'm sure glad I have insurance or I'd be out of a lot of money or possibly be in debt for the next twenty years after a judge gets finished with me.

We have GOT to get the scamming insurance companies and drug companies OUT of this mess entirely. No interactions with the medical profession should be possible. Complete corruption. They do it every day.

 

[The Barbarian]

What if instead people could change insurance if they had a pre-existing condition, BUT NOT get it if they did not have it at all or the policy had lapsed. In addition to not allowing companies to drop people once they had a condition ( even if it was one where relapse was possible or even likely.

That wouldn't be acceptable to republicans. The real objection the right has to removing pre-existing condition limits, is that it allows people to change jobs without losing their insurance. Business doesn't like turnover. And this would mostly affect good workers who would be able to move up to better jobs.

Not good for republican donors.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That wouldn't be acceptable to republicans. The real objection the right has to removing pre-existing condition limits, is that it allows people to change jobs without losing their insurance. Business doesn't like turnover. And this would mostly affect good workers who would be able to move up to better jobs.

Not good for republican donors.

I don't agree this is the real reason, but insurance should not be tied to employment anyway. Businesses did this in order to offer "benefits" in lieu of pay. Now, there isn't much benefit since the cost of insurance is so high. Insurance needs to be eliminated.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't agree this is the real reason, but insurance should not be tied to employment anyway.

For employers, it's the major reason. And yes, insurance shouldn't be tied to employers, but it is. So the portability of insurance is very important at the same time as corporations don't like it.

Insurance needs to be eliminated.

Bernie's "Medicare for all" is probably not a good solution yet. Might be down the road, if we don't find an adequate privatized solution.