[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Wordle - daily game - islander - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:53am
 
NYTimes Connections - islander - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:51am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:15am
 
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:11am
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:09am
 
Breaking News - rgio - Mar 29, 2024 - 6:03am
 
Trump - haresfur - Mar 29, 2024 - 5:40am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Mar 29, 2024 - 4:30am
 
Main Mix Playlist - R567 - Mar 29, 2024 - 4:08am
 
Ukraine - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:51pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:27pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:11pm
 
Uploading Music - macadavy - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:18pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - zevon - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:17pm
 
Oldest Rock song on RP - johkir - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:07pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:28pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Orbiting Earth - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:19pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:17pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:13pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:06pm
 
Israel - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:03pm
 
Irony 101 - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App - pradler4kant - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:57am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:27am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
 
Outstanding Covers - thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Please Don't Post Here - Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
 
Motivational Office Cliches... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
 
Food - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands) - kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
 
China - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
 
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b... - jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
 
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and... - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
 
Basketball - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers - sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
 
2024 Elections! - Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
 
Economix - R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
 
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great" - miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone - Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
 
Great guitar faces - skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Despots, dictators and war criminals - R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Media Matters - thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
 
MEALTICKET - drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » OBAMACARE Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 17, 2021 - 4:12pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
The legal genius of the Texas AG strikes again.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Jun 17, 2021 - 2:52pm

 Steely_D wrote:

Thank goodness. The idea that the GOP is so obsessed with preventing Obama from having any success that they want to take away the health care that so many Americans depend on - without ever proposing a replacement during the former administration's four year run - makes me think that the party isn't just clumsy and unfocused, but actually cruel and elitist. Fuck them and their short-term, self-serving incompetence.



+1
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 17, 2021 - 12:37pm

Thank goodness. The idea that the GOP is so obsessed with preventing Obama from having any success that they want to take away the health care that so many Americans depend on - without ever proposing a replacement during the former administration's four year run - makes me think that the party isn't just clumsy and unfocused, but actually cruel and elitist. Fuck them and their short-term, self-serving incompetence.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Jun 17, 2021 - 11:06am

oh, snap
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Mar 26, 2019 - 7:28am

Yeah because: fuck you peasants.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 6, 2017 - 4:46pm

 MrsHobieJoe wrote:

This isn't correct by the way. The justice system in the uk and the NHS are independent of each other. There are non NHS providers in the uk too btw (although many people only access care via the NHS). It's not a medical point, it's that the court looks after the interest of the child first and effectively takes precedence over the parents.

I can understand that many people would find that the higher standing of the court in this case difficult and that's the point you should be taking up, not the healthcare. Personally I've always found it a bit high handed for the courts to prevent people accessing last resort care for children overseas (even though the courts usually make a rational decision and always place the interests of the kid first) and I'd lean towards more latitude in situations like this.  

 
Yes, I did lump the justice system and the NHS together.  

Please correct me if I'm wrong about the following.  The UK justice system is forced to take the position it has because the UK signed onto the UN treaty in question, Convention on the Rights of the Child.  In that capacity it forces the NHS to defer to the courts over the parents.  The court prohibited any medical treatment or second opinion outside the NHS.  Only after a struggle in court was the doctor from the US with the experimental treatment given access to CG, but only after it was decidedly too late to consider that alternative as too much time had passed to even consider it viable anymore.  The window of opportunity had closed because of the time spent in court fighting for access to other medical care.

If true it paints the UK NHS as a closed system, at least for children to date, and medical care outside of the NHS but within the UK itself is unaccessable.  That would in essence make it a sole payer, again for at least children, so far.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Aug 5, 2017 - 8:50pm

 MrsHobieJoe wrote:

This isn't correct by the way. The justice system in the uk and the NHS are independent of each other. There are non NHS providers in the uk too btw (although many people only access care via the NHS). It's not a medical point, it's that the court looks after the interest of the child first and effectively takes precedence over the parents.

I can understand that many people would find that the higher standing of the court in this case difficult and that's the point you should be taking up, not the healthcare. Personally I've always found it a bit high handed for the courts to prevent people accessing last resort care for children overseas (even though the courts usually make a rational decision and always place the interests of the kid first) and I'd lean towards more latitude in situations like this.  

 
Thank you.
MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Aug 5, 2017 - 8:48pm

 kurtster wrote:

What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself.  It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood.  It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US.  It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country.  That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality.  That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority.  The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably.  

You have long argued with me about how the UN cannot take any sovereignty away from the USA.  And I have argued that they can and will given the opportunity.  This is a case where they would accomplish that and take away not only our sovereignty but also take away the rights of a parent over their minor children.  A bureaucrat will have more power over a child than their parent because of the goals of the UN and those who seek a single payer system in the USA.

 
This isn't correct by the way. The justice system in the uk and the NHS are independent of each other. There are non NHS providers in the uk too btw (although many people only access care via the NHS). It's not a medical point, it's that the court looks after the interest of the child first and effectively takes precedence over the parents.

I can understand that many people would find that the higher standing of the court in this case difficult and that's the point you should be taking up, not the healthcare. Personally I've always found it a bit high handed for the courts to prevent people accessing last resort care for children overseas (even though the courts usually make a rational decision and always place the interests of the kid first) and I'd lean towards more latitude in situations like this.  
maryte

maryte Avatar

Location: Blinding You With Library Science!
Gender: Female


Posted: Jul 31, 2017 - 12:10pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


 

{#Roflol}
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 31, 2017 - 8:37am


ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 9:02pm

 kurtster wrote:
What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself.  It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood.  It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US.  It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country.  That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality.  That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority.  The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably.  

You have long argued with me about how the UN cannot take any sovereignty away from the USA.  And I have argued that they can and will given the opportunity.  This is a case where they would accomplish that and take away not only our sovereignty but also take away the rights of a parent over their minor children.  A bureaucrat will have more power over a child than their parent because of the goals of the UN and those who seek a single payer system in the USA.
 
Your argument has no concern for the welfare of the child. This sort of case happens, maybe not frequently, but decisions like these are made every day. By insurance, by family, by doctors: keep on life support, pull the plug, DNR, Christian Science... the same circumstances might be handled differently by different families and medical facilities but you cannot say the decision is strictly due to some uncaring system. This one has always been about what's best for the patient.
 
But really the outrage is that you're so afraid this rare scenario might happen that you're willing to let millions suffer the fate of having to skip that checkup, ignore those chest pains, and wind up in the ER without any way to pay.
BlueHeronDruid

BlueHeronDruid Avatar

Location: Заебани сме луѓе


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 8:43pm

 kurtster wrote:

What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself.  It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood.  It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US.  It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country.  That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality.  That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority.  The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably.  

This is more about the courts than the Health Service. You might enjoy this read.

 "The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and the consultant instructed by the parents all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit.1" Also, "The clinician in the US who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred."
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 5:00pm

 steeler wrote:

The opposition to a single-payer system (nationalized medicine) is mired in (1) those who benefit from a system that distinguishes between winners and losers, and want to continue so benefitting, and (2) those who have been duped, mostly by those in category No. 1, into believing that they will not just be inconvenienced by such a system, but adversely impacted by it, and/or that it somehow runs contrary to fundamental American values/ principles.

Take the very recent, tragic case of Charlie Gard, which has been cited by those against a single-payer system as a cautionary tale of what could happen to each of us if we were to be imprisoned by a single-payer system.  First of all, even if I were buying into all that those citing the Gard case were stating about that case and a single—payer system — which I am not — it would still constitute a case occurring on the margins — the far margins, at that. But here is the point I want to make about that: there are many, many individuals — children and adults — in the U.S. now, under our current system, who cannot get to the "first- class" medical providers who may have a remedy for their medical condition.  It happens every day.

Not everyone can be treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins, to name a few.  There are innumerable stories of folk who were told by their regular providers that there was nothing that could be done for them unless they could get into some of the clinical trials going on at the more elite institutions; many times, one does not even get that latter advice, just the former.  There are those who always can gain access to the elite care and there are those who, through a lot of diligence and some luck, manage to do so.  Those are the winners.  They are not the majority — not even close. So, this notion that under our present system, anyone can choose which medical providers he or she wants to treat them is a canard, a hollow "right."             

A system in which one has to be his or her own strong advocate, or have someone who can do so for them, to get the care that is needed is one that is seriously flawed. Yet we hear that all the time — you have to advocate to get the care you need . What an indictment!  A system that awards winners, and places the losers in a game of health care roulette, is inherently unfair.                   

*rant off* 

 
What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself.  It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood.  It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US.  It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country.  That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality.  That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority.  The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably.  

You have long argued with me about how the UN cannot take any sovereignty away from the USA.  And I have argued that they can and will given the opportunity.  This is a case where they would accomplish that and take away not only our sovereignty but also take away the rights of a parent over their minor children.  A bureaucrat will have more power over a child than their parent because of the goals of the UN and those who seek a single payer system in the USA.


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 12:56pm

 black321 wrote:
 

  


I'm not clear on your last point, as i think with any system, the individual has to be their strongest advocate...but too the point of using these extreme outlier events in single payer systems as a reason to support a system that excludes tens of millions from basic care is absurd. 

the fact is, we all need and will eventually receive some form of healthcare.  So lets get everyone in the pool participating, and leave only the financing part up to the government.  Stripping out all the middle men in the payment/claims processing will recapture profits and create efficiencies, and having everyone in the pool will better diversify risk and create more stability over what will need to be paid. 

 

Yes, the fact that millions are without basic care is the biggest indictment, and, I agree, does put the lie to those who cite to outlier cases as reason for not instituting a single-payer system.  I was talking about people who are in the system and that, even among those, there are winners and losers.  What I mean by the comment regarding being an advocate is that, in my view, health care should not follow a capitalist model.  That someone is not as adept at maneuvering through the system should not relegate them to a lesser standard of care.  Health care should not be based on merit.  That is my point.        




black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 12:28pm

 steeler wrote:

The opposition to a single-payer system (nationalized medicine) is mired in (1) those who benefit from a system that distinguishes between winners and losers, and want to continue so benefitting, and (2) those who have been duped, mostly by those in category No. 1, into believing that they will not just be inconvenienced by such a system, but adversely impacted by it, and/or that it somehow runs contrary to fundamental American values/ principles.

Take the very recent, tragic case of Charlie Gard, which has been cited by those against a single-payer system as a cautionary tale of what could happen to each of us if we were to be imprisoned by a single-payer system.  First of all, even if I were buying into all that those citing the Gard case were stating about that case and a single—payer system — which I am not — it would still constitute a case occurring on the margins — the far margins, at that. But here is the point I want to make about that: there are many, many individuals — children and adults — in the U.S. now, under our current system, who cannot get to the "first- class" medical providers who may have a remedy for their medical condition.  It happens every day.

Not everyone can be treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins, to name a few.  There are innumerable stories of folk who were told by their regular providers that there was nothing that could be done for them unless they could get into some of the clinical trials going on at the more elite institutions; many times, one does not even get that latter advice, just the former.  There are those who always can gain access to the elite care and there are those who, through a lot of diligence and some luck, manage to do so.  Those are the winners.  They are not the majority — not even close. So, this notion that under our present system, anyone can choose which medical providers he or she wants to treat them is a canard, a hollow "right."             

A system in which one has to be his or her own strong advocate, or have someone who can do so for them, to get the care that is needed is one that is seriously flawed. Yet we hear that all the time — you have to advocate to get the care you need .  A system that awards winners, and places the losers in a game of health care roulette, is inherently unfair.                   

*rant off* 

  


I'm not clear on your last point, as i think with any system, the individual has to be their strongest advocate...but too the point of using these extreme outlier events in single payer systems as a reason to support a system that excludes tens of millions from basic care is absurd. 

the fact is, we all need and will eventually receive some form of healthcare.  So lets get everyone in the pool participating, and leave only the financing part up to the government.  Stripping out all the middle men in the payment/claims processing will recapture profits and create efficiencies, and having everyone in the pool will better diversify risk and create more stability over what will need to be paid. 

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 11:54am

The opposition to a single-payer system (nationalized medicine) is mired in (1) those who benefit from a system that distinguishes between winners and losers, and want to continue so benefitting, and (2) those who have been duped, mostly by those in category No. 1, into believing that they will not just be inconvenienced by such a system, but adversely impacted by it, and/or that it somehow runs contrary to fundamental American values/ principles.

Take the very recent, tragic case of Charlie Gard, which has been cited by those against a single-payer system as a cautionary tale of what could happen to each of us if we were to be imprisoned by a single-payer system.  First of all, even if I were buying into all that those citing the Gard case were stating about that case and a single—payer system — which I am not — it would still constitute a case occurring on the margins — the far margins, at that. But here is the point I want to make about that: there are many, many individuals — children and adults — in the U.S. now, under our current system, who cannot get to the "first- class" medical providers who may have a remedy for their medical condition.  It happens every day.

Not everyone can be treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins, to name a few.  There are innumerable stories of folk who were told by their regular providers that there was nothing that could be done for them unless they could get into some of the clinical trials going on at the more elite institutions; many times, one does not even get that latter advice, just the former.  There are those who always can gain access to the elite care and there are those who, through a lot of diligence and some luck, manage to do so.  Those are the winners.  They are not the majority — not even close. So, this notion that under our present system, anyone can choose which medical providers he or she wants to treat them is a canard, a hollow "right."             

A system in which one has to be his or her own strong advocate, or have someone who can do so for them, to get the care that is needed is one that is seriously flawed. Yet we hear that all the time — you have to advocate to get the care you need . What an indictment!  A system that awards winners, and places the losers in a game of health care roulette, is inherently unfair.                   

*rant off* 

 

.     




maryte

maryte Avatar

Location: Blinding You With Library Science!
Gender: Female


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 6:59am

 meower wrote:
We had an M&M (morbidity and mortality) conference yesterday on a 15 year old who suicided in May. In then end, the child's access to mental health care (denial by her insurance company for the service that she really needed) was seen as a primary causal factor.  It was the epitome of the need for a single payer system. It's simply Not OK that a child died of suicide due to a lack of access to needed support.

 
I agree with you but, unfortunately, far too many people consider that Someone Else's Problem and not worth paying for.  Hell, I generally don't like people, but even I recognize the value (on so very many levels) of living in a cooperative society.
meower

meower Avatar

Location: i believe, i believe, it's silly, but I believe
Gender: Female


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 6:34am

We had an M&M (morbidity and mortality) conference yesterday on a 15 year old who suicided in May. In then end, the child's access to mental health care (denial by her insurance company for the service that she really needed) was seen as a primary causal factor.  It was the epitome of the need for a single payer system. It's simply Not OK that a child died of suicide due to a lack of access to needed support.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 6:27am

 miamizsun wrote:
good news and bad news

the bad news is that the affordable care act is anything but (force and coercion = horrible economic distortions)

just the latest iteration of political stupidity (this would include the gop's flavor too)

it is crushing the stuffing right out of the middle class via reality versus political rhetoric

even the nyt times and wsj are admitting as much

listen to the daily today (premiums for the working folks has gone through the roof in spite of political promises)

our politicians couldn't build a solution to a problem if our lives depended on it

the good news is that eventually the credit card will max out and we will hit bottom

at that point we will have an opportunity to take the chains off build something that works

breach the fortress as they say

i have a dream - mlk

 
Im not because it still involves too many middlemen - insurers and PBMs.  But in truth, it needs a few more years to build scale...meaning, get everyone, including healthy folks who one day will be sick, in the pool and diversify the risk, reduce volatility and things should begin to stabilize. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2017 - 5:24am

good news and bad news

the bad news is that the affordable care act is anything but (force and coercion = horrible economic distortions)

just the latest iteration of political stupidity (this would include the gop's flavor too)

it is crushing the stuffing right out of the middle class via reality versus political rhetoric

even the nyt times and wsj are admitting as much

listen to the daily today (premiums for the working folks has gone through the roof in spite of political promises)

our politicians couldn't build a solution to a problem if our lives depended on it

the good news is that eventually the credit card will max out and we will hit bottom

at that point we will have an opportunity to take the chains off build something that works

breach the fortress as they say

i have a dream - mlk
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64  Next