Conservatives win by landslide

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

You're being deliberately misunderstanding (Looks like we're all afraid to say "obtuse", might get you thrown in the hole at Shawshank.)

Edited January 27, 2020 by Coreece
used wrong emoji

[turtlespeed 212]

48 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Its only funny because it has ALREADY had a boulder of truth to it.

But only in my case - everyone else got a pass.

[JerryBaumchen 1,050]

3 hours ago, DJL said:

(Looks like we're all afraid to say "obtuse",

Hi DJL,

I took a better ( IMO ) route; he is the only person here that I have ever blocked.

Works for me,

Jerry Baumchen

[mbohu 77]

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

What you are describing is a possible fix for a broken system.

A system where universal healthcare is a large part.

But again, in this particular instance, universal healthcare is not the problem. What they--and therefore you, since you posted it--are complaining about, is that (non-naturalized) immigrants are NOT part of that system.--so they actually WANT universal healthcare. The problem is they are NOT getting it. So it presents an argument FOR universal healthcare.

 

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Anytime you make one thing for everyone - it will fail.

That seems like a generalization, and simply isn't true. Even if it was true in healthcare, it isn't true in many other places: One currency for all citizens, one electrical grid, one water delivery system, one internet, one police force, one set of laws that applies to everyone, one road system, one shared airspace, and so on.

(and again, I think most people in the US really misunderstand this, and it makes them afraid: NONE of the hospitals or doctors or anything else about the actual health services are run in any way by the government. The government just pools the collection of insurance payments--in many countries with universal healthcare, even the insurance providers are private companies. There is nothing "government run" about this system, as far as anyone who participates can tell. You are never dealing with "the government" when any of your health decisions are concerned.)

But what I would say about healthcare: I think the most successful model is, where all the basics necessary for survival are completely covered by universal healthcare; and that still leaves room for private insurance companies, that can cover elective procedures and various upgrades (better hospital rooms, etc) for those who want it. This works in a number of countries. It's the one issue where I'm not sure why Bernie (and others) are so adamant in not wanting ANY private insurance. BUT: The system only works well if everyone is FIRST covered by universal healthcare--because that offers tremendous cost benefits, that simply aren't available when it is just one of the options.

 

Again: Your article is more about immigration and the issue of refugees in Europe, and that certainly is another interesting topic of discussion (if quite treacherous territory.)

Edited January 28, 2020 by mbohu

[JerryBaumchen 1,050]

21 minutes ago, mbohu said:

 NONE of the hospitals or doctors or anything else about the actual health services are run in any way by the government. 

Hi mbohu,

I worked in three military hospitals while serving in the US Air Force.  And, let us not forget the facilities owned & ran by the Veteran's Admin.

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,390]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

What you are describing is a possible fix for a broken system.

A system where universal healthcare is a large part.

Anytime you make one thing for everyone - it will fail.

 

Medicare has been a real disaster, hasn't it?

[ryoder 1,390]

12 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi mbohu,

I worked in three military hospitals while serving in the US Air Force.  And, let us not forget the facilities owned & ran by the Veteran's Admin.

Jerry Baumchen

That is something that has been puzzling me.

The military-run facilities make sense, but why did the govt get into the business of being a single provider for vets, instead of just functioning as a single payer for them???

[mbohu 77]

15 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi mbohu,

I worked in three military hospitals while serving in the US Air Force.  And, let us not forget the facilities owned & ran by the Veteran's Admin.

Jerry Baumchen

Jerry, I was talking about countries that have universal healthcare. I'm not too familiar with the VA system in the US. 

Do you think that the proponents of universal healthcare in the US want the actual hospitals to be government run? I don't get that impression. Again, I'm saying that in the European countries that I'm familiar with, and which have universal healthcare, the actual health services are not government-run, and in some countries even the insurance providers are private or partially private--and in no case I am aware of, is the government making any treatment or health decisions.
Again, the VA may be different. I am completely ignorant about it. My uneducated guess would be that medical services for active duty members may be very excellent, and for veterans not so much...but that is just based on rumors and my impression of the US military being one of the most excellent organizations in the world...but the US unfortunately lacking in concern for their vets once they left active service (just finished an episode of NCIS that indicated as much...so you can see how much my opinions are coming from TV and second hand knowledge! )

And yes: Even in Europe, military facilities may be government run--not sure about that.

[turtlespeed 212]

11 hours ago, mbohu said:

But again, in this particular instance, universal healthcare is not the problem. What they--and therefore you, since you posted it--are complaining about, is that (non-naturalized) immigrants are NOT part of that system

So - what it seems you are saying, is that UHC is good in theory, it just can't be held to task when put into practice.

[mbohu 77]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

So - what it seems you are saying, is that UHC is good in theory, it just can't be held to task when put into practice.

Well, no. I have experienced it in practice and loved it. (Well, I never thought twice about it--only now in comparison to the US system, do I notice how good it was.)

BUT: Of course it doesn't solve every problem (especially not problems of immigration and other intractable issues). Of course, any implementation of it also has its issues; some implementations are better, some are worse.

But this particular problem would exist in the US as well, without UHC. The undocumented immigrant wouldn't get any health services here either, would she? In fact, knowing your political leanings, I am assuming you do not WANT her to get any health services here, or do you? So I am not sure what you think the problem is. Or are you saying that the US should give high quality, free health services to undocumented immigrants who are held in camps?
(You'd be my hero, if you did!!!!)

[turtlespeed 212]

2 hours ago, mbohu said:

Well, no. I have experienced it in practice and loved it. (Well, I never thought twice about it--only now in comparison to the US system, do I notice how good it was.)

BUT: Of course it doesn't solve every problem (especially not problems of immigration and other intractable issues). Of course, any implementation of it also has its issues; some implementations are better, some are worse.

But this particular problem would exist in the US as well, without UHC. The undocumented immigrant wouldn't get any health services here either, would she? In fact, knowing your political leanings, I am assuming you do not WANT her to get any health services here, or do you? So I am not sure what you think the problem is. Or are you saying that the US should give high quality, free health services to undocumented immigrants who are held in camps?
(You'd be my hero, if you did!!!!)

I was in the camp that got goat fucked with the roll out of obama care - so I will never want that piece of shit legislation shoved down anyone's throat.  It is also the reason I despise Pelosi.  That is also why I won't ever agree with anyone that says it was my duty to suck it up and it was for the greater good.

 

I do want healthcare for all, but it needs to be put into a package that is bipartisan, or tri partisan, or whatever partisan.  Not shoved down our throats, like the last one and like this impeachment has been.

The package should keep the burden the same financially for everyone that had insurance before the giant fuckstorm that obama care still is.

Both, fortunately, and unfortunately, the system we have now is not ideal.  IT DOES, however, provide at least emergency care for all.  I can't think of anyone that has been turned away from crisis care or emergency care in the last 10-15 years. (I'm sure someone will come up with an example) 

 

 

 

 

[SkyDekker 1,130]

42 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I do want healthcare for all, but it needs to be put into a package that is bipartisan, or tri partisan, or whatever partisan.  Not shoved down our throats, like the last one and like this impeachment has been.

Unlike which legislation in which you got a personal say?

[turtlespeed 212]

12 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Unlike which legislation in which you got a personal say?

All of the same ones you voted on.

[SkyDekker 1,130]

56 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

All of the same ones you voted on.

Yeah that makes no sense.

You are complaining about specific cases in which legislation got shoved down your throat. Which legislation do you feel did not get shoved down your throat?

[turtlespeed 212]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

Yeah that makes no sense.

You are complaining about specific cases in which legislation got shoved down your throat. Which legislation do you feel did not get shoved down your throat?

THAT is an entirely different question than you asked before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPACE_Act_of_2015 - no real issues that I took exception to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_America’s_Surface_Transportation_Act - Although you have to take the good with the bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_2001–present - This should have been more stern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickett_Wendler,_Frank_Mongiello,_Jordan_McLinn,_and_Matthew_Bellina_Right_to_Try_Act_of_2017 - This was a good step forward in my opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Dingell,_Jr._Conservation,_Management,_and_Recreation_Act - However - I thought more land should have been "captured".

 

A lot of the others, that I was aware of, and/or, paid attention to, had fluff in them that I didnt necessarily agree with.  However, none of those listed affected me, or my family so directly, as the ACA.

[mbohu 77]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I do want healthcare for all, but it needs to be put into a package that is bipartisan, or tri partisan, or whatever partisan.

maybe non-partisan?

[mistercwood 287]

Ironically most of the failings of the ACA were added in due to things needing to be "bi-partisan".

The US healthcare system is a joke. It's a profit-making machine for insurance companies, and the rest of the developed world will continue to gaze on in horror and disappointment until you guys sort your shit out.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, mbohu said:

maybe non-partisan?

No such thing.

[mbohu 77]

25 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

No such thing.

Maybe for politicians, but shouldn't be hard at all for us:
What would you want from healthcare for all? 
What do you think we can afford as a nation?
How do you want it managed?
Given that you're probably not an expert on these matters (neither am I nor most of us here), what are you willing to try, even if it doesn't completely align with what you think is best?
If you know any models in other countries, which ones do you like? Why? Which ones don't you like? Why not?
(Can we look at that simply based on the actual healthcare system and not based on what we think this country may stand for politically, as in "Well they're northern European, so they must be libtard socialists"...which of course isn't true anyway--plenty of hardcore conservative Norwegians, Swedes and Icelanders!)

It's not too hard to answer these questions without getting caught up in which politician or party may have suggested something like that previously, and how much I happen to like or dislike their followers.

[turtlespeed 212]

29 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Maybe for politicians, but shouldn't be hard at all for us:
What would you want from healthcare for all? 
What do you think we can afford as a nation?
How do you want it managed?
Given that you're probably not an expert on these matters (neither am I nor most of us here), what are you willing to try, even if it doesn't completely align with what you think is best?
If you know any models in other countries, which ones do you like? Why? Which ones don't you like? Why not?
(Can we look at that simply based on the actual healthcare system and not based on what we think this country may stand for politically, as in "Well they're northern European, so they must be libtard socialists"...which of course isn't true anyway--plenty of hardcore conservative Norwegians, Swedes and Icelanders!)

It's not too hard to answer these questions without getting caught up in which politician or party may have suggested something like that previously, and how much I happen to like or dislike their followers.

None of that matters - 

What matters is what you can get someone listening to a million voices and a million dollars to try to put in place.

 

At the moment I haven't bothered to put any of that down.

I haven't found any plan that I like - 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by turtlespeed
Added content

[mbohu 77]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

None of that matters - 

What matters is what you can get someone listening to a million voices and a million dollars to try to put in place.

Well, in the end, yes: That's what matters in the implementation phase.

 

But you have to start with the design phase first, even in your own thinking.

 

Otherwise we are just reacting to suggestions from politicians, primarily based on how much we like them or how much we believe we may identify with their general world views (which often are pretend world views anyway--based on what THEY think we like to hear) and we get messes like the ACA, which was initially suggested by Democrats because it used to be a Republican plan, that Democrats thought they may get through with some Republican support, and then was gutted of anything really useful (public option, price controls) by industry and politicians that did not want it to succeed (because now it had a Democrat's name attached to it) and so on.
(not that I don't think it has SOME good things for SOME people)

That's completely putting the buggy in front of the horse.

Design phase first: What do we actually want?

Then: See how much of that we can convince those money and power grabbing selfish bastards (uh, I mean: devoted public servants) to pass.

 

"plan the jump. jump the...well something that looks at least slightly similar to the plan"

[wmw999 2,129]

There is no possible plan that won’t make it worse for someone out there. There is harm for someone that comes from every “advance.” Whether it’s direct butler (eg harmed by a vaccine when they slight not have gotten the disease) or by reliance on it and it fails (go too fast on ice trusting your ABS brakes to stop you and skid anyway). That doesn’t mean ACA was well-done (there were lots of issues), but it was at least something to be addressed. 

People aren’t turned away from ER”s because of EMTALA, some 1986 legislation. 

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,406]

22 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickett_Wendler,_Frank_Mongiello,_Jordan_McLinn,_and_Matthew_Bellina_Right_to_Try_Act_of_2017 - This was a good step forward in my opinion.

You mean the legislation that LITERALLY shoves dangerous, untested drugs down your throat?

[turtlespeed 212]

19 hours ago, billvon said:

You mean the legislation that LITERALLY shoves dangerous, untested drugs down your throat?

Shoves - or allows? 

I didn't see where you get "Taxed" if you don't take them.

I don't see on the tax forms where you have to prove that you had drugs in your system.

[billvon 2,406]

On 1/30/2020 at 8:03 AM, turtlespeed said:

Shoves - or allows? 

If someone doesn't like a new law it is absolutely "shoves."   (I am sure you don't need examples; you provided some good ones above.)