Discussion:
A few thoughts on Health Care
Add Reply
!Jones
2017-02-24 20:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The health care system we know as the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has two defining and interlocking points:

The PPACA provides that a person cannot be denied coverage due to a
pre-existing medical condition; further, the PPACA mandates that all
people must be covered by an acceptable plan.

People have complained that it is too expensive; however, with a
little thought, it's easy to see why there is a high initial cost.

Why was the prior system unacceptable?

Prior to PPACA, people would buy coverage on the market; the issue was
that, if a person had a pre-existing condition, he or she could not
buy coverage. These people were essentially uninsured and ended up in
the emergency rooms where the facilities were obligated to provide
care at great cost.

Health insurance remains solvent by insuring healthy people. When the
PPACA became law, there was a large backlog of people with expensive
conditions who suddenly entered the system driving costs up. The
costs will come down as new people enter the market to offset the
initial influx.

We have only had the PPACA for a couple of years; any plan written by
republicans will have the same endemic issues. It is not the time to
scrap a perfectly good system simply because it has a high front-load.
After a few years, the costs *will* drop.

Let's look at the republican proposal:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That's right, there isn't one. Nothing! It took the democrats two
full years, led by a far better political leader than Trump, to draft
the PPACA... Trump has no plan and no clue how to write one.

When the republicans actually get a working plan on paper and get it
passed, *then* we will discuss repealing the PPACA; until that
happens, it's out of the question.

BTW: recent polls show that the PPACA enjoys greater support than
Cheeto!

Jones
Jack G.
2017-02-25 08:29:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
The health care system we know as the Patient Protection and
The PPACA provides that a person cannot be denied coverage due to a
pre-existing medical condition; further, the PPACA mandates that all
people must be covered by an acceptable plan.
People have complained that it is too expensive; however, with a
little thought, it's easy to see why there is a high initial cost.
Why was the prior system unacceptable?
Prior to PPACA, people would buy coverage on the market; the issue was
that, if a person had a pre-existing condition, he or she could not
buy coverage. These people were essentially uninsured and ended up in
the emergency rooms where the facilities were obligated to provide
care at great cost.
Health insurance remains solvent by insuring healthy people. When the
PPACA became law, there was a large backlog of people with expensive
conditions who suddenly entered the system driving costs up. The
costs will come down as new people enter the market to offset the
initial influx.
We have only had the PPACA for a couple of years; any plan written by
republicans will have the same endemic issues. It is not the time to
scrap a perfectly good system simply because it has a high front-load.
After a few years, the costs *will* drop.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That's right, there isn't one. Nothing! It took the democrats two
full years, led by a far better political leader than Trump, to draft
the PPACA... Trump has no plan and no clue how to write one.
When the republicans actually get a working plan on paper and get it
passed, *then* we will discuss repealing the PPACA; until that
happens, it's out of the question.
BTW: recent polls show that the PPACA enjoys greater support than
Cheeto!
Jones
How many years/months did it take the democrats to get this health
plan working? So you bad mouth the republicans for not walking
on water. Pink school teachers have become brain dead.
Chinook Lover
2017-02-25 14:28:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack G.
Post by !Jones
The health care system we know as the Patient Protection and
The PPACA provides that a person cannot be denied coverage due to a
pre-existing medical condition; further, the PPACA mandates that all
people must be covered by an acceptable plan.
People have complained that it is too expensive; however, with a
little thought, it's easy to see why there is a high initial cost.
Why was the prior system unacceptable?
Prior to PPACA, people would buy coverage on the market; the issue was
that, if a person had a pre-existing condition, he or she could not
buy coverage. These people were essentially uninsured and ended up in
the emergency rooms where the facilities were obligated to provide
care at great cost.
Health insurance remains solvent by insuring healthy people. When the
PPACA became law, there was a large backlog of people with expensive
conditions who suddenly entered the system driving costs up. The
costs will come down as new people enter the market to offset the
initial influx.
We have only had the PPACA for a couple of years; any plan written by
republicans will have the same endemic issues. It is not the time to
scrap a perfectly good system simply because it has a high front-load.
After a few years, the costs *will* drop.
.
.
That's right, there isn't one. Nothing! It took the democrats two
full years, led by a far better political leader than Trump, to draft
the PPACA... Trump has no plan and no clue how to write one.
When the republicans actually get a working plan on paper and get it
passed, *then* we will discuss repealing the PPACA; until that
happens, it's out of the question.
BTW: recent polls show that the PPACA enjoys greater support than
Cheeto!
Jones
How many years/months did it take the democrats to get this health
plan working? So you bad mouth the republicans for not walking
on water. Pink school teachers have become brain dead.
what he's saying is, Jack, that with Republican obstruction the ACA took
several years to form what we see today. you erase that and add the
Democrats push-back and voila a coupla years down the road you got
something with a different name that is still not close to perfect.
what say the Dems admit their plan has some flaws and then both parties
work TOGETHER and NOT against each other in order to make ACA better.
opponents of ACA purposefully use the title 'Obamacare' to frighten the
lemmings simply because it has "HIS" name on it. read my
lips...Affordable Care Act...no where in that title does it mention
Barack Obama. and don't call me 'pinkie' I worked in NYC during the
80s and heard Trumps name over and over and it wasn't all good. he did
hire someone to fix the skating rink in Central Park...look up Wollman
Skating Rink
--
"they called him 'stumpy' and his kidneys were end-stage as well."
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
2017-02-25 15:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If you tend to enjoy full-facial oil baths, just climb aboard a shithook.
!Jones
2017-02-25 16:00:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:28:47 -0600, in alt.war.vietnam Chinook Lover
Post by Chinook Lover
what he's saying is, Jack, that with Republican obstruction the ACA took
several years to form what we see today. you erase that and add the
Democrats push-back and voila a coupla years down the road you got
something with a different name that is still not close to perfect.
what say the Dems admit their plan has some flaws and then both parties
work TOGETHER and NOT against each other in order to make ACA better.
opponents of ACA purposefully use the title 'Obamacare' to frighten the
lemmings simply because it has "HIS" name on it. read my
lips...Affordable Care Act...no where in that title does it mention
Barack Obama. and don't call me 'pinkie' I worked in NYC during the
80s and heard Trumps name over and over and it wasn't all good. he did
hire someone to fix the skating rink in Central Park...look up Wollman
Skating Rink
That's *about* the most intelligent posting I have seen on that
matter. What a concept! We all work together to improve what we
have.

Jones
Chinook Lover
2017-02-25 17:44:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:28:47 -0600, in alt.war.vietnam Chinook Lover
Post by Chinook Lover
what he's saying is, Jack, that with Republican obstruction the ACA took
several years to form what we see today. you erase that and add the
Democrats push-back and voila a coupla years down the road you got
something with a different name that is still not close to perfect.
what say the Dems admit their plan has some flaws and then both parties
work TOGETHER and NOT against each other in order to make ACA better.
opponents of ACA purposefully use the title 'Obamacare' to frighten the
lemmings simply because it has "HIS" name on it. read my
lips...Affordable Care Act...no where in that title does it mention
Barack Obama. and don't call me 'pinkie' I worked in NYC during the
80s and heard Trumps name over and over and it wasn't all good. he did
hire someone to fix the skating rink in Central Park...look up Wollman
Skating Rink
That's *about* the most intelligent posting I have seen on that
matter. What a concept! We all work together to improve what we
have.
Jones
it was the morning drugs no doubt wait til manana on Sunday's I
double up...working together with the dope
--
"they called him 'stumpy' and his kidneys were end-stage as well."
!Jones
2017-02-25 16:18:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:28:47 -0600, in alt.war.vietnam Chinook Lover
Post by Jack G.
How many years/months did it take the democrats to get this health
plan working? So you bad mouth the republicans for not walking
on water. Pink school teachers have become brain dead.
Wasn't it something like two years before roll out? ... then, it
wasn't exactly *working*, per se; however, nobody had ever tried
bringing up such a complicated transaction processing system from
scratch before. Heck, I have never even seen something as simple as a
community college registration system come up cleanly. I'd say about
four years before it was really starting to draw a draft.

Thus, it has been up for about four years, give or take... it's about
half way (or so) to actually bringing costs down and it will work.
Right at first, the system had to absorb a large influx of uninsured
people with pre-existing conditions; health insurance *must* have a
large pool of healthy insured people... that's just how it works; give
it another four to six years.

Here's a factoid for the GOP: anything you do will have to cover the
two important bases: no exclusion for existing conditions and
universal mandated coverage. You don't get the first without the
second. Well, those are the defining points of the PPACA, so why
rewrite it? There isn't a damn thing you can do to bring down
health-care costs magically because it's expensive. You can't exclude
existing conditions without making coverage mandatory. Bottom line:
if you repeal it, a lot of GOP congress-people might be looking for a
job because the PPACA has gone the way of Social Security and 20
million people depend on it.

Jones
needtruth
2017-02-27 19:10:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chinook Lover
Post by Jack G.
Post by !Jones
The health care system we know as the Patient Protection and
The PPACA provides that a person cannot be denied coverage due to a
pre-existing medical condition; further, the PPACA mandates that all
people must be covered by an acceptable plan.
People have complained that it is too expensive; however, with a
little thought, it's easy to see why there is a high initial cost.
Why was the prior system unacceptable?
Prior to PPACA, people would buy coverage on the market; the issue was
that, if a person had a pre-existing condition, he or she could not
buy coverage. These people were essentially uninsured and ended up in
the emergency rooms where the facilities were obligated to provide
care at great cost.
Health insurance remains solvent by insuring healthy people. When the
PPACA became law, there was a large backlog of people with expensive
conditions who suddenly entered the system driving costs up. The
costs will come down as new people enter the market to offset the
initial influx.
We have only had the PPACA for a couple of years; any plan written by
republicans will have the same endemic issues. It is not the time to
scrap a perfectly good system simply because it has a high front-load.
After a few years, the costs *will* drop.
.
.
That's right, there isn't one. Nothing! It took the democrats two
full years, led by a far better political leader than Trump, to draft
the PPACA... Trump has no plan and no clue how to write one.
When the republicans actually get a working plan on paper and get it
passed, *then* we will discuss repealing the PPACA; until that
happens, it's out of the question.
BTW: recent polls show that the PPACA enjoys greater support than
Cheeto!
Jones
How many years/months did it take the democrats to get this health
plan working? So you bad mouth the republicans for not walking
on water. Pink school teachers have become brain dead.
what he's saying is, Jack, that with Republican obstruction the ACA took
several years to form what we see today. you erase that and add the
Democrats push-back and voila a coupla years down the road you got
something with a different name that is still not close to perfect. what
say the Dems admit their plan has some flaws and then both parties work
TOGETHER and NOT against each other in order to make ACA better.
opponents of ACA purposefully use the title 'Obamacare' to frighten the
lemmings simply because it has "HIS" name on it. read my
lips...Affordable Care Act...no where in that title does it mention
Barack Obama. and don't call me 'pinkie' I worked in NYC during the
80s and heard Trumps name over and over and it wasn't all good. he did
hire someone to fix the skating rink in Central Park...look up Wollman
Skating Rink
I was wondering if all the right wing nutso's who hate obamacare so much
ever had to sit in the waiting room of any American hospital looking at
all the people who come thru the doors looking for care. I once read
that there were 10 million ER visits in just the year before obamacare
from people who had no other means of obtaining health care and that
about 90% of those people had no means to pay for the visit or any of
the subsequent follow ups necessary for their recovery. After a little
research I found out that each visit to an ER cost about $750, exclusive
of the cost of follow up care. So if a right wing nutso just did the
math, and even they could do the math since it is basic math and from my
experience the intellectual ability of a vast majority of the right wing
nutso's is very basic, if it's even that, they would come to the
conclusion that the cost of not having obamacare is 7 BILLION, 500
MILLION DOLLARS OF OUR FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS EXCLUSIVE OF ANY AND ALL THE
FOLLOW UP DOLLARS NEEDED!!!!

So welcome to "AMERICA, THE WAY IT USED TO BE", all you right wing
nutso's!!!!!

Welcome, because now you are going to get exactly what you all deserve.
You're going to get the bill for all those ER visits that obamacare used
to defer because the cost of ER care for people who cant pay for it,
because every cent of it, has to be paid, by law, from federal tax
dollars at the billed price!!! Ha, ha, ha, ha. It's really funny how
stupid the American Right really is. It is almost hilarious. It really
is.
--
-- --- truthneeded
Chinook Lover
2017-02-27 21:12:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by needtruth
Post by Chinook Lover
Post by Jack G.
Post by !Jones
The health care system we know as the Patient Protection and
The PPACA provides that a person cannot be denied coverage due to a
pre-existing medical condition; further, the PPACA mandates that all
people must be covered by an acceptable plan.
People have complained that it is too expensive; however, with a
little thought, it's easy to see why there is a high initial cost.
Why was the prior system unacceptable?
Prior to PPACA, people would buy coverage on the market; the issue was
that, if a person had a pre-existing condition, he or she could not
buy coverage. These people were essentially uninsured and ended up in
the emergency rooms where the facilities were obligated to provide
care at great cost.
Health insurance remains solvent by insuring healthy people. When the
PPACA became law, there was a large backlog of people with expensive
conditions who suddenly entered the system driving costs up. The
costs will come down as new people enter the market to offset the
initial influx.
We have only had the PPACA for a couple of years; any plan written by
republicans will have the same endemic issues. It is not the time to
scrap a perfectly good system simply because it has a high front-load.
After a few years, the costs *will* drop.
.
.
That's right, there isn't one. Nothing! It took the democrats two
full years, led by a far better political leader than Trump, to draft
the PPACA... Trump has no plan and no clue how to write one.
When the republicans actually get a working plan on paper and get it
passed, *then* we will discuss repealing the PPACA; until that
happens, it's out of the question.
BTW: recent polls show that the PPACA enjoys greater support than
Cheeto!
Jones
How many years/months did it take the democrats to get this health
plan working? So you bad mouth the republicans for not walking
on water. Pink school teachers have become brain dead.
what he's saying is, Jack, that with Republican obstruction the ACA took
several years to form what we see today. you erase that and add the
Democrats push-back and voila a coupla years down the road you got
something with a different name that is still not close to perfect. what
say the Dems admit their plan has some flaws and then both parties work
TOGETHER and NOT against each other in order to make ACA better.
opponents of ACA purposefully use the title 'Obamacare' to frighten the
lemmings simply because it has "HIS" name on it. read my
lips...Affordable Care Act...no where in that title does it mention
Barack Obama. and don't call me 'pinkie' I worked in NYC during the
80s and heard Trumps name over and over and it wasn't all good. he did
hire someone to fix the skating rink in Central Park...look up Wollman
Skating Rink
I was wondering if all the right wing nutso's who hate obamacare so much
ever had to sit in the waiting room of any American hospital looking at
all the people who come thru the doors looking for care. I once read
that there were 10 million ER visits in just the year before obamacare
from people who had no other means of obtaining health care and that
about 90% of those people had no means to pay for the visit or any of
the subsequent follow ups necessary for their recovery. After a little
research I found out that each visit to an ER cost about $750, exclusive
of the cost of follow up care. So if a right wing nutso just did the
math, and even they could do the math since it is basic math and from my
experience the intellectual ability of a vast majority of the right wing
nutso's is very basic, if it's even that, they would come to the
conclusion that the cost of not having obamacare is 7 BILLION, 500
MILLION DOLLARS OF OUR FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS EXCLUSIVE OF ANY AND ALL THE
FOLLOW UP DOLLARS NEEDED!!!!
So welcome to "AMERICA, THE WAY IT USED TO BE", all you right wing
nutso's!!!!!
Welcome, because now you are going to get exactly what you all deserve.
You're going to get the bill for all those ER visits that obamacare used
to defer because the cost of ER care for people who cant pay for it,
because every cent of it, has to be paid, by law, from federal tax
dollars at the billed price!!! Ha, ha, ha, ha. It's really funny how
stupid the American Right really is. It is almost hilarious. It really
is.
we'd do well to get over party names and look closely at the topic of
conversation. if you could get people of either party woke up to the
fact that if ten people take a family member or friend to the ER with
raging pneumonia and intermingle with 10 totally unrelated individuals
with the shits...you wind up 40 motherfuckers with the drizzling shits.
all because the hardheaded ones (who by the way get free health care)
wanted to argue and reinvent the wheel just because HE did it on HIS
watch. what a crock. if stoopit was a sign of genius we'd have a
true shining light in Washington
--
"they called him 'stumpy' and his kidneys were end-stage as well."
meport
2017-02-28 13:00:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chinook Lover
Post by needtruth
Post by Chinook Lover
Post by Jack G.
Post by !Jones
The health care system we know as the Patient Protection and
The PPACA provides that a person cannot be denied coverage due to a
pre-existing medical condition; further, the PPACA mandates that all
people must be covered by an acceptable plan.
People have complained that it is too expensive; however, with a
little thought, it's easy to see why there is a high initial cost.
Why was the prior system unacceptable?
Prior to PPACA, people would buy coverage on the market; the issue was
that, if a person had a pre-existing condition, he or she could not
buy coverage. These people were essentially uninsured and ended up in
the emergency rooms where the facilities were obligated to provide
care at great cost.
Health insurance remains solvent by insuring healthy people. When the
PPACA became law, there was a large backlog of people with expensive
conditions who suddenly entered the system driving costs up. The
costs will come down as new people enter the market to offset the
initial influx.
We have only had the PPACA for a couple of years; any plan written by
republicans will have the same endemic issues. It is not the time to
scrap a perfectly good system simply because it has a high front-load.
After a few years, the costs *will* drop.
.
.
That's right, there isn't one. Nothing! It took the democrats two
full years, led by a far better political leader than Trump, to draft
the PPACA... Trump has no plan and no clue how to write one.
When the republicans actually get a working plan on paper and get it
passed, *then* we will discuss repealing the PPACA; until that
happens, it's out of the question.
BTW: recent polls show that the PPACA enjoys greater support than
Cheeto!
Jones
How many years/months did it take the democrats to get this health
plan working? So you bad mouth the republicans for not walking
on water. Pink school teachers have become brain dead.
what he's saying is, Jack, that with Republican obstruction the ACA took
several years to form what we see today. you erase that and add the
Democrats push-back and voila a coupla years down the road you got
something with a different name that is still not close to perfect. what
say the Dems admit their plan has some flaws and then both parties work
TOGETHER and NOT against each other in order to make ACA better.
opponents of ACA purposefully use the title 'Obamacare' to frighten the
lemmings simply because it has "HIS" name on it. read my
lips...Affordable Care Act...no where in that title does it mention
Barack Obama. and don't call me 'pinkie' I worked in NYC during the
80s and heard Trumps name over and over and it wasn't all good. he did
hire someone to fix the skating rink in Central Park...look up Wollman
Skating Rink
I was wondering if all the right wing nutso's who hate obamacare so much
ever had to sit in the waiting room of any American hospital looking at
all the people who come thru the doors looking for care. I once read
that there were 10 million ER visits in just the year before obamacare
from people who had no other means of obtaining health care and that
about 90% of those people had no means to pay for the visit or any of
the subsequent follow ups necessary for their recovery. After a little
research I found out that each visit to an ER cost about $750, exclusive
of the cost of follow up care. So if a right wing nutso just did the
math, and even they could do the math since it is basic math and from my
experience the intellectual ability of a vast majority of the right wing
nutso's is very basic, if it's even that, they would come to the
conclusion that the cost of not having obamacare is 7 BILLION, 500
MILLION DOLLARS OF OUR FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS EXCLUSIVE OF ANY AND ALL THE
FOLLOW UP DOLLARS NEEDED!!!!
So welcome to "AMERICA, THE WAY IT USED TO BE", all you right wing
nutso's!!!!!
Welcome, because now you are going to get exactly what you all deserve.
You're going to get the bill for all those ER visits that obamacare used
to defer because the cost of ER care for people who cant pay for it,
because every cent of it, has to be paid, by law, from federal tax
dollars at the billed price!!! Ha, ha, ha, ha. It's really funny how
stupid the American Right really is. It is almost hilarious. It really
is.
we'd do well to get over party names and look closely at the topic of
conversation. if you could get people of either party woke up to the
fact that if ten people take a family member or friend to the ER with
raging pneumonia and intermingle with 10 totally unrelated individuals
with the shits...you wind up 40 motherfuckers with the drizzling shits.
all because the hardheaded ones (who by the way get free health care)
wanted to argue and reinvent the wheel just because HE did it on HIS
watch. what a crock. if stoopit was a sign of genius we'd have a
true shining light in Washington
Everything you posted is correct IF we lived in a perfect world.
However, we live in a world that has been deliberately pushed into
ideological "castes" for reason of personal power and monetary gain.
The word "castes" as descriptive of colonial India is a good analogy of
what has happened here. Back in the 1970's it became apparent that a
lot of the "advantages" of being a member the right wing in our society
was being eroded by progressive ideas and legislation. The main benefit
of this legislation were gains provided to the working class and
minorities at the expense of white male conservatives. They had to do
something to protect their privilege in our Society so they used their
access to money that was not available to anyone else to push their
ideology for their continued control of our Society.

Don't believe me? Start reading about it. There are plenty of books
written by non-political historians explaining the process and how the
right ascended and stopped all and every group with the use of money and
access to the policy makers to achieve what they wanted to protect their
privilege.

Take obamacare. All other considerations aside, the main reason the
right hates obamacare is because it gives workers and minorities a means
to cut the dependence between access to health care and a job. It gives
workers and minorities freedom to work where they want and thus
employers have to stop their dictatorial control over the personal lives
of their employees as a means to keep their employees "in line". Just
think about it - with obamacare a worker can tell an employer that he or
she will not work under conditions that cause them loss of their
personal lives because now they have health care that is affordable and
portable. The employee really can, for the first time in US History,
control their working environment by telling the employer if he or she
doesn't meet their demands for certain working conditions they can now
go somewhere else with real impunity. This creates real problems for
employers. They have to adapt or they lose. And they don't want to
adopt so they lose. The simplest way to regain control is to get rid of
obamacare so again employees are at the mercy of the employer.
--
--
---
meport
!Jones
2017-02-28 15:25:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:00:58 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam meport
Post by meport
Everything you posted is correct IF we lived in a perfect world.
However, we live in a world that has been deliberately pushed into
ideological "castes" for reason of personal power and monetary gain.
The word "castes" as descriptive of colonial India is a good analogy of
what has happened here. Back in the 1970's it became apparent that a
lot of the "advantages" of being a member the right wing in our society
was being eroded by progressive ideas and legislation. The main benefit
of this legislation were gains provided to the working class and
minorities at the expense of white male conservatives. They had to do
something to protect their privilege in our Society so they used their
access to money that was not available to anyone else to push their
ideology for their continued control of our Society.
Don't believe me? Start reading about it. There are plenty of books
written by non-political historians explaining the process and how the
right ascended and stopped all and every group with the use of money and
access to the policy makers to achieve what they wanted to protect their
privilege.
Take obamacare. All other considerations aside, the main reason the
right hates obamacare is because it gives workers and minorities a means
to cut the dependence between access to health care and a job. It gives
workers and minorities freedom to work where they want and thus
employers have to stop their dictatorial control over the personal lives
of their employees as a means to keep their employees "in line". Just
think about it - with obamacare a worker can tell an employer that he or
she will not work under conditions that cause them loss of their
personal lives because now they have health care that is affordable and
portable. The employee really can, for the first time in US History,
control their working environment by telling the employer if he or she
doesn't meet their demands for certain working conditions they can now
go somewhere else with real impunity. This creates real problems for
employers. They have to adapt or they lose. And they don't want to
adopt so they lose. The simplest way to regain control is to get rid of
obamacare so again employees are at the mercy of the employer.
That isn't counter intuitive; however, it's usually couched in terms
of economic matters. A person without health care still receives
health care... and this is what drives the cost up.

There is another way to reduce health care costs that would probably
be very effective: we simply release non-public providers from the
requirement that they accept non-solvent patients. This has an
up-side and a down-side: the up-side is that it would become important
to be covered; therefore, people would buy insurance. The down-side
is that some people would bleed to death at the e-room door because
they didn't have any money; however, costs would drop.

Jones
!Jones
2017-02-27 23:14:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:10:43 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam needtruth
Post by needtruth
I was wondering if all the right wing nutso's who hate obamacare so much
ever had to sit in the waiting room of any American hospital looking at
all the people who come thru the doors looking for care. I once read
that there were 10 million ER visits in just the year before obamacare
from people who had no other means of obtaining health care and that
about 90% of those people had no means to pay for the visit or any of
the subsequent follow ups necessary for their recovery. After a little
research I found out that each visit to an ER cost about $750, exclusive
of the cost of follow up care. So if a right wing nutso just did the
math, and even they could do the math since it is basic math and from my
experience the intellectual ability of a vast majority of the right wing
nutso's is very basic, if it's even that, they would come to the
conclusion that the cost of not having obamacare is 7 BILLION, 500
MILLION DOLLARS OF OUR FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS EXCLUSIVE OF ANY AND ALL THE
FOLLOW UP DOLLARS NEEDED!!!!
Yeah; if you don't have health insurance, the ER is your only option.
The PPACA is really a good idea if you can simply see the future
beyond this second. Right *now*, the premiums are high; however,
there is good reason to believe they will drop.

Jones
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2017-02-28 00:24:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:10:43 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam needtruth
Post by needtruth
I was wondering if all the right wing nutso's who hate obamacare so much
ever had to sit in the waiting room of any American hospital looking at
all the people who come thru the doors looking for care. I once read
that there were 10 million ER visits in just the year before obamacare
from people who had no other means of obtaining health care and that
about 90% of those people had no means to pay for the visit or any of
the subsequent follow ups necessary for their recovery. After a little
research I found out that each visit to an ER cost about $750, exclusive
of the cost of follow up care. So if a right wing nutso just did the
math, and even they could do the math since it is basic math and from my
experience the intellectual ability of a vast majority of the right wing
nutso's is very basic, if it's even that, they would come to the
conclusion that the cost of not having obamacare is 7 BILLION, 500
MILLION DOLLARS OF OUR FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS EXCLUSIVE OF ANY AND ALL THE
FOLLOW UP DOLLARS NEEDED!!!!
Yeah; if you don't have health insurance, the ER is your only option.
The PPACA is really a good idea if you can simply see the future
beyond this second. Right *now*, the premiums are high; however,
there is good reason to believe they will drop.
Jones
Insurance *is* socialism. Yay socialism, bitches.
;-)
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
2017-02-25 15:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I just can't read all this cuz of my attention span being not long enough.
Matt Osborn
2017-02-27 20:15:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
Health insurance remains solvent by insuring healthy people. When the
PPACA became law, there was a large backlog of people with expensive
conditions who suddenly entered the system driving costs up. The
costs will come down as new people enter the market to offset the
initial influx.
Establish a welfare program, call it insurance and tax families to pay
for it. Typical government program.

Next up is the drunk driver's Uber program paid for through auto
insurance fees.


-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
!Jones
2017-02-27 23:10:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:15:13 -0600, in alt.war.vietnam Matt Osborn
Post by Matt Osborn
Establish a welfare program, call it insurance and tax families to pay
for it. Typical government program.
Well, Matt, in a nutshell, that's what all insurance is. You share
the risk of catastrophic damage.

Health care is a little different from insuring your home, though.
Nationally, we require that hospitals treat a person who shows up
regardless of whether or not they have a means to pay... this fact
drives health care costs through the roof. To fix that, we wrote the
PPACA which says that everyone *must* have the means to pay and
insurance companies must insure everyone. Thus, right at first, there
was a large large influx of people who could not have obtained health
insurance ante. Yes, this isn't cheap!

You cannot reduce health-care cost without making sure everyone is
able to be covered; you cannot require that insurers sell them
insurance unless you require people to buy it while they're healthy...
you can't buy flood insurance *after* the levy has broken; it's that
simple.

So... what's *your* idea here? If it's gonna have universal coverage
and disallow pre-condition exclusions, you may as well keep the PPACA
because these are its main points.

Jones
Matt Osborn
2017-03-03 05:01:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:15:13 -0600, in alt.war.vietnam Matt Osborn
Post by Matt Osborn
Establish a welfare program, call it insurance and tax families to pay
for it. Typical government program.
Well, Matt, in a nutshell, that's what all insurance is. You share
the risk of catastrophic damage.
Health care is a little different from insuring your home, though.
Nationally, we require that hospitals treat a person who shows up
regardless of whether or not they have a means to pay... this fact
drives health care costs through the roof. To fix that, we wrote the
PPACA which says that everyone *must* have the means to pay and
insurance companies must insure everyone. Thus, right at first, there
was a large large influx of people who could not have obtained health
insurance ante. Yes, this isn't cheap!
You cannot reduce health-care cost without making sure everyone is
able to be covered; you cannot require that insurers sell them
insurance unless you require people to buy it while they're healthy...
you can't buy flood insurance *after* the levy has broken; it's that
simple.
So... what's *your* idea here? If it's gonna have universal coverage
and disallow pre-condition exclusions, you may as well keep the PPACA
because these are its main points.
Jones
Steve,

Governments have long sought to parade their benefits and hide their
costs. Insurance is a shared risk scheme; someone who is uninsurable
is not a risk, but a certainty. If the government wishes to provide
healthcare to such folks, that's fine, but don't call it insurance.

Set up a program that comes out of general revenues instead of forcing
young families with children who really need insurance to pick up the
tab while old farts like us skate away clean.

Speaking of '....having to pass the bill to find out what is in it...'
Speaker Ryan is keeping his new government mandated health care secret
so it can pass both houses too..


-- msosborn at msosborn dot com

Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
2017-02-28 00:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Matt Osborn
Post by !Jones
Health insurance remains solvent by insuring healthy people. When the
PPACA became law, there was a large backlog of people with expensive
conditions who suddenly entered the system driving costs up. The
costs will come down as new people enter the market to offset the
initial influx.
Establish a welfare program, call it insurance and tax families to pay
for it. Typical government program.
Next up is the drunk driver's Uber program paid for through auto
insurance fees.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
Your car insurance *is* socialism. Yay socialism, bitches!

Are you opposed to all types of insurance, peabrain?
;-)
needtruth
2017-02-28 16:47:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Matt Osborn
Post by !Jones
Health insurance remains solvent by insuring healthy people. When the
PPACA became law, there was a large backlog of people with expensive
conditions who suddenly entered the system driving costs up. The
costs will come down as new people enter the market to offset the
initial influx.
Establish a welfare program, call it insurance and tax families to pay
for it. Typical government program.
Next up is the drunk driver's Uber program paid for through auto
insurance fees.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
Let's let companies buy membership at country clubs like Pebble Beach or
Trump National Doral Resort and use the price of the membership as a tax
write off for business expenses even though there are very little
business ever conducted because company executives are the only ones who
have exclusive use of the golf privileges.

Let's let companies set up dummy subsidiaries in tax havens, move in
name only the corporate headquarters to one of those subsidiaries and
use a loophole in the tax code to avoid paying taxes in the US. Why
don't you try to do this just to see how long it takes the IRS to begin
prosecuting you for tax evasion? Apple did it. Baldwin Holdings did
it. Ely Lilly did it. Google did it. So why don't you?

So why aren't all the tax loophole schemes that benefit a very few
companies and/or individuals available to you or me? Because they were
rich enough to buy the tax break and you and I are not rich enough to
buy one. But let's not call this kind of stuff "welfare for the rich"
because we all know that the rich don't get welfare don't we?? Nope,
they get tax breaks that you and I aren't entitled to but what the hell,
it isn't welfare even though it really is welfare, is it?
--
-- --- truthneeded
Loading...