Trump MAGAThread IV: Twixt Scylla & Some Bad Hombres

[Northern Davincia]

It sounds downright brilliant in comparison to the ACA.

So companies are allowed to once again sell worthless "insurance" to people who can't afford the Platinum Package which of course will never cover whatever ailment befalls them. And HSAs? Just begging to be plundered when Trump or whoever thinks nobody's watching.

The sad reality of life is that there will always be a select few who cannot afford health insurance, whether under this plan or under the ACA. Negligible losses. I save money.
As for plundering, that is pure conjecture.

[Gauthier]

So companies are allowed to once again sell worthless "insurance" to people who can't afford the Platinum Package which of course will never cover whatever ailment befalls them. And HSAs? Just begging to be plundered when Trump or whoever thinks nobody's watching.

The sad reality of life is that there will always be a select few who cannot afford health insurance, whether under this plan or under the ACA. Negligible losses. I save money.
As for plundering, that is pure conjecture.

You can tell much about somebody who dismisses the unfortunate as statistics such as "negligible losses".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So companies are allowed to once again sell worthless "insurance" to people who can't afford the Platinum Package which of course will never cover whatever ailment befalls them. And HSAs? Just begging to be plundered when Trump or whoever thinks nobody's watching.

The sad reality of life is that there will always be a select few who cannot afford health insurance, whether under this plan or under the ACA. Negligible losses. I save money.
As for plundering, that is pure conjecture.

You're actually not going to be saving much if the Republicans fuck it up.

In fact, you might end up spending more money, rather than saving any.

The fact is, we don't know anything about the replacement plan of the Republicans to say anything yet.

[Gauthier]

The sad reality of life is that there will always be a select few who cannot afford health insurance, whether under this plan or under the ACA. Negligible losses. I save money.
As for plundering, that is pure conjecture.

You're actually not going to be saving much if the Republicans fuck it up.

In fact, you might end up spending more money, rather than saving any.

Negligible losses. *nod*

[Hittanryan]

So companies are allowed to once again sell worthless "insurance" to people who can't afford the Platinum Package which of course will never cover whatever ailment befalls them. And HSAs? Just begging to be plundered when Trump or whoever thinks nobody's watching.

The sad reality of life is that there will always be a select few who cannot afford health insurance, whether under this plan or under the ACA. Negligible losses. I save money.
As for plundering, that is pure conjecture.

Yeah it's not like every other developed nation has a way of providing health coverage to their entire populations. We really have to just accept that people will die of preventable diseases because they can't afford treatment in the wealthiest nation on Earth.

[Camicon]

So companies are allowed to once again sell worthless "insurance" to people who can't afford the Platinum Package which of course will never cover whatever ailment befalls them. And HSAs? Just begging to be plundered when Trump or whoever thinks nobody's watching.

The sad reality of life is that there will always be a select few who cannot afford health insurance, whether under this plan or under the ACA. Negligible losses. I save money.
As for plundering, that is pure conjecture.

The US spends proportionally more on healthcare than every other developed state that has single-payer.

1. Switch to single-payer
2. Cover everyone
3. Save money
4. Profit

[Hittanryan]

The sad reality of life is that there will always be a select few who cannot afford health insurance, whether under this plan or under the ACA. Negligible losses. I save money.
As for plundering, that is pure conjecture.

The US spends proportionally more on healthcare than every other developed state that has single-payer.

1. Switch to single-payer
2. Cover everyone
3. Save money
4. Profit

Realistically, switching to single-payer would actually be step 2, after step 1: campaign finance reform. We're stuck with a garbage healthcare system because our politicians get bought off by the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

[Northern Davincia]

The sad reality of life is that there will always be a select few who cannot afford health insurance, whether under this plan or under the ACA. Negligible losses. I save money.
As for plundering, that is pure conjecture.

You can tell much about somebody who dismisses the unfortunate as statistics such as "negligible losses".

My only concern is that the statistic is less severe than the 6 million who lost their insurance under the ACA.

The sad reality of life is that there will always be a select few who cannot afford health insurance, whether under this plan or under the ACA. Negligible losses. I save money.
As for plundering, that is pure conjecture.

The US spends proportionally more on healthcare than every other developed state that has single-payer.

1. Switch to single-payer
2. Cover everyone
3. Save money
4. Profit

I'm guessing you haven't watched the Cruz v. Sanders debate on this subject. I would prefer healthcare in America not being rationed or have people on waiting lists, not to mention receiving less overall care.

[Camicon]

The US spends proportionally more on healthcare than every other developed state that has single-payer.

1. Switch to single-payer
2. Cover everyone
3. Save money
4. Profit

I'm guessing you haven't watched the Cruz v. Sanders debate on this subject. I would prefer healthcare in America not being rationed or have people on waiting lists, not to mention receiving less overall care.

What a stupid argument. You know what's worse than having to wait for care?

Not being afford it in the first place.

[Hittanryan]

The US spends proportionally more on healthcare than every other developed state that has single-payer.

1. Switch to single-payer
2. Cover everyone
3. Save money
4. Profit

I'm guessing you haven't watched the Cruz v. Sanders debate on this subject. I would prefer healthcare in America not being rationed or have people on waiting lists, not to mention receiving less overall care.

You completely ignored his point: we pay MORE for WORSE access to healthcare. Waiting for treatment is preferable to dying from a total lack of treatment. Your response might as well have been a non-sequitur.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm guessing you haven't watched the Cruz v. Sanders debate on this subject. I would prefer healthcare in America not being rationed or have people on waiting lists, not to mention receiving less overall care.

Two politicians debating on it means nothing to me.

They're neither financial nor economic experts. They want your vote, not for you to be informed.

[Northern Davincia]

I'm guessing you haven't watched the Cruz v. Sanders debate on this subject. I would prefer healthcare in America not being rationed or have people on waiting lists, not to mention receiving less overall care.

What a stupid argument. You know what's worse than having to wait for care?

Not being afford it in the first place.

What's the difference when you'll either get far sicker (to the point where you're practically untreatable or it becomes ludicrously expensive) or dead in the long-run?

[Camicon]

What a stupid argument. You know what's worse than having to wait for care?

Not being afford it in the first place.

What's the difference when you'll either get far sicker (to the point where you're practically untreatable or it becomes ludicrously expensive) or dead in the long-run?

Do you see that happening on the regular in Canada, or the UK?

No. The answer is no.

Again, stupid fucking argument.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/donald-trump-news-conference-anti-semitism/index.html?sr=fbCNN021717donald-trump-news-conference-anti-semitism1230AMStoryLink&linkId=34593151

"In response to a question Thursday about threats to Jewish centers nationwide, President Donald Trump called a Jewish reporter a liar, told him to sit down and later said anti-Semitism was coming from "the other side.""

This is disgusting and the way he handled this completely dismissed the Jewish community's entirely valid concerns about an uptick in hate crimes, hate speech, and other incidents of an anti-semitic nature. I don't know if Trump is personally anti-semitic, but he truly does not care about anyone other than white, Christian men.

Yeah, this is bad.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What a stupid argument. You know what's worse than having to wait for care?

Not being afford it in the first place.

What's the difference when you'll either get far sicker (to the point where you're practically untreatable or it becomes ludicrously expensive) or dead in the long-run?

That depends on how you manage the system.

Nobody is saying that you should wait for your medical treatment. This is something about medical insurance. Single-payer medical insurance is not the same as government-administrated hospitals. While they're both part of the medical industry, one is how are hospitals getting paid and how they are funded, while the other is how hospitals are run.

[Hittanryan]

What a stupid argument. You know what's worse than having to wait for care?

Not being afford it in the first place.

What's the difference when you'll either get far sicker (to the point where you're practically untreatable or it becomes ludicrously expensive) or dead in the long-run?

Let me get this straight: instead of wait times in some (not all) single-payer healthcare systems which can sometimes be too long, you'd prefer certain death due to your insurance company denying you coverage at all?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What's the difference when you'll either get far sicker (to the point where you're practically untreatable or it becomes ludicrously expensive) or dead in the long-run?

Do you see that happening on the regular in Canada, or the UK?

No. The answer is no.

Again, stupid fucking argument.

Not to mention that argument is irrelevant to the part of the system being discussed.

Single-payer system, at least as far as it is understood, means publicly funded insurance or hospitals. This is not the same as to how hospitals are administrated. You can have a privately-managed, publicly-funded hospital. See: Parkland medical system. So far as I understand it, your system is the same, publicly funded and privately managed, no?

[Neutraligon]

Do you see that happening on the regular in Canada, or the UK?

No. The answer is no.

Again, stupid fucking argument.

Not to mention that argument is irrelevant to the part of the system being discussed.

Single-payer system, at least as far as it is understood, means publicly funded insurance or hospitals. This is not the same as to how hospitals are administrated. You can have a privately-managed, publicly-funded hospital. See: Parkland medical system.

I just wish they would allow medicare to negotiate prices. As one of the biggest buyers they would have a great deal of power to affect prices, and them being allowed to negotiate prices means they could actually end up reducing government spending.

[Corrian]

I'm guessing you haven't watched the Cruz v. Sanders debate on this subject. I would prefer healthcare in America not being rationed or have people on waiting lists, not to mention receiving less overall care.

I would rather wait than die because I couldn't afford it.

...As long as I don't die waiting, of course.

[Hittanryan]

Not to mention that argument is irrelevant to the part of the system being discussed.

Single-payer system, at least as far as it is understood, means publicly funded insurance or hospitals. This is not the same as to how hospitals are administrated. You can have a privately-managed, publicly-funded hospital. See: Parkland medical system.

I just wish they would allow medicare to negotiate prices. As one of the biggest buyers they would have a great deal of power to affect prices, and them being allowed to negotiate prices means they could actually end up reducing government spending.

Can't do that. Republicans get campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

[Neutraligon]

I just wish they would allow medicare to negotiate prices. As one of the biggest buyers they would have a great deal of power to affect prices, and them being allowed to negotiate prices means they could actually end up reducing government spending.

Can't do that. Republicans get campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

But the savings. You could actually cut government spending.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I just wish they would allow medicare to negotiate prices. As one of the biggest buyers they would have a great deal of power to affect prices, and them being allowed to negotiate prices means they could actually end up reducing government spending.

Can't do that. Republicans get campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

The whole "waiting time" scare tactic deployed by Republicans is just that, a scare tactic.

The medical system in the United States is not going to worsen if the hospital gets paid through a public fund rather than a private one. The waiting time is a thing of the Canadian healthcare system and its bureaucracy to get referrals done in general, and not from the type of funding employed.

[Hittanryan]

Can't do that. Republicans get campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

But the savings. You could actually cut government spending.

Republicans don't actually care about government spending. They might campaign on it, but as soon as they get in power they inevitably cut taxes on the rich, borrow tons of money, and start spending money like it's going out of style. That's how you get Reagan and W. Bush style deficits.

They care about getting reelected, however. That means keeping their donors happy.

[Northern Davincia]

What's the difference when you'll either get far sicker (to the point where you're practically untreatable or it becomes ludicrously expensive) or dead in the long-run?

Do you see that happening on the regular in Canada, or the UK?

No. The answer is no.

Again, stupid fucking argument.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ting-lists
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/e ... -1.2997726
The mere existence of waiting lists ought to raise some suspicions of the aforementioned possibilities. I'll find more information as I go along.

I just wish they would allow medicare to negotiate prices. As one of the biggest buyers they would have a great deal of power to affect prices, and them being allowed to negotiate prices means they could actually end up reducing government spending.

Can't do that. Republicans get campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

And Democrats don't?

What's the difference when you'll either get far sicker (to the point where you're practically untreatable or it becomes ludicrously expensive) or dead in the long-run?

Let me get this straight: instead of wait times in some (not all) single-payer healthcare systems which can sometimes be too long, you'd prefer certain death due to your insurance company denying you coverage at all?

Considering I don't believe healthcare is a right, yes, death is preferable on the basis of principle.

[Corrian]

"Fiscally responsible"

"Approves $20,000,000,000 wall"