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

Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Jul 31, 2021 - 8:25am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Jul 31, 2021 - 7:44am
 
COVID-19 - Coaxial - Jul 31, 2021 - 7:43am
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - sirdroseph - Jul 31, 2021 - 4:33am
 
Back to the 70's - sirdroseph - Jul 31, 2021 - 4:26am
 
That's good advice - sirdroseph - Jul 31, 2021 - 3:41am
 
Sweet horrible irony. - sirdroseph - Jul 31, 2021 - 3:32am
 
Get the Quote - sirdroseph - Jul 31, 2021 - 3:23am
 
Things You Thought Today - the_jake - Jul 30, 2021 - 9:17pm
 
Trump - haresfur - Jul 30, 2021 - 9:00pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - steeler - Jul 30, 2021 - 5:18pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - halogen - Jul 30, 2021 - 2:22pm
 
New Music - sirdroseph - Jul 30, 2021 - 1:20pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - sirdroseph - Jul 30, 2021 - 9:42am
 
The Obituary Page - GeneP59 - Jul 30, 2021 - 9:39am
 
What is the meaning of this? - Proclivities - Jul 30, 2021 - 7:34am
 
Health Care - miamizsun - Jul 30, 2021 - 6:55am
 
TV shows you watch - maryte - Jul 30, 2021 - 6:35am
 
Automotive Lust - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 30, 2021 - 6:21am
 
The Rpeeps Favorite Guitarists Thread - sirdroseph - Jul 30, 2021 - 4:49am
 
ISO Android app usage guide - kbs - Jul 30, 2021 - 3:45am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Jul 30, 2021 - 2:20am
 
Surfing! - whatshisname - Jul 29, 2021 - 11:14pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Jul 29, 2021 - 7:28pm
 
Zappa - black321 - Jul 29, 2021 - 1:56pm
 
Environment - R_P - Jul 29, 2021 - 1:40pm
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - black321 - Jul 29, 2021 - 12:46pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Jul 29, 2021 - 11:46am
 
Hot Dog... it's Summer! - Proclivities - Jul 29, 2021 - 10:54am
 
Music documentaries - Ohmsen - Jul 29, 2021 - 10:02am
 
Capitalism and Consumerism... now what? - black321 - Jul 29, 2021 - 8:47am
 
Philosophy (Meaty Metaphysical Munchables!) - sirdroseph - Jul 29, 2021 - 7:57am
 
Derplahoma! - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 28, 2021 - 10:39pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Red_Dragon - Jul 28, 2021 - 6:11pm
 
The Military Industrial Complex - westslope - Jul 28, 2021 - 5:36pm
 
Celebrity Deaths - _Bruce_ - Jul 28, 2021 - 3:51pm
 
Tech & Science - Red_Dragon - Jul 28, 2021 - 3:42pm
 
What did you have for lunch? - oldviolin - Jul 28, 2021 - 1:32pm
 
Live Music - R_P - Jul 28, 2021 - 12:42pm
 
~ Have a good joke you can post? ~ - oldviolin - Jul 28, 2021 - 8:27am
 
how do you feel right now? - Antigone - Jul 28, 2021 - 8:22am
 
Today in History - ColdMiser - Jul 28, 2021 - 6:51am
 
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader - rhahl - Jul 28, 2021 - 6:32am
 
Poetry Forum - ScottN - Jul 28, 2021 - 6:09am
 
Living in America - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jul 27, 2021 - 11:04pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 27, 2021 - 8:35pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 27, 2021 - 4:47pm
 
HALF A WORLD - Ohmsen - Jul 27, 2021 - 3:48pm
 
I swing therefore I am. - rhahl - Jul 27, 2021 - 12:46pm
 
Beer - the_jake - Jul 27, 2021 - 10:29am
 
Olympics - Is anybody interested - sirdroseph - Jul 27, 2021 - 9:10am
 
MQA Stream Coming to BLUOS - Cebolla - Jul 27, 2021 - 9:00am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 26, 2021 - 9:23pm
 
One Reason I Don't Trust the Police - Red_Dragon - Jul 26, 2021 - 7:54pm
 
KUDOS for BillG - kenmo - Jul 26, 2021 - 4:34pm
 
Climate Change - Red_Dragon - Jul 26, 2021 - 3:48pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - haresfur - Jul 25, 2021 - 8:14pm
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - R_P - Jul 25, 2021 - 5:04pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Steely_D - Jul 25, 2021 - 2:40pm
 
Nobel Prize Literature - rhahl - Jul 25, 2021 - 2:36pm
 
Comics! - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 25, 2021 - 2:01pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Jul 25, 2021 - 11:40am
 
It's fine - rhahl - Jul 25, 2021 - 9:34am
 
Property rights and violence in the USA - westslope - Jul 25, 2021 - 9:27am
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - Antigone - Jul 25, 2021 - 4:32am
 
Bob Dylan - Steely_D - Jul 24, 2021 - 10:58pm
 
Outstanding Covers - Steely_D - Jul 24, 2021 - 10:41pm
 
The Future is here! - Red_Dragon - Jul 24, 2021 - 4:58pm
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - Manbird - Jul 24, 2021 - 2:40pm
 
Getting disconnected/paused at bumper time - coding_to_music - Jul 24, 2021 - 11:41am
 
Drones - Prodigal_SOB - Jul 24, 2021 - 11:37am
 
Webcasting rates going up again cry - kenmo - Jul 24, 2021 - 9:56am
 
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage? - sirdroseph - Jul 24, 2021 - 6:14am
 
The War On You - sirdroseph - Jul 24, 2021 - 5:25am
 
Media Bias - sirdroseph - Jul 24, 2021 - 5:16am
 
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



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



Posted: Jun 17, 2021 - 11:06am

oh, snap
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



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



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: planting flowers


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: (3261.3 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