Quote :

"this is a common economic fallacy. in a free market BOTH the seller and the buyer benefit."

not in a "free market" where corporations are legally bound to work for shareholders.

3/8/2017 8:00:08 PM

^^^^ that's what you get insurance for, or pay out of pocket. If you break a leg, it should really only cost a few hundred dollars for an X-ray and cast and follow ups in real world. If you're poor you get a credit to pay, but any middle class family should be able to pay this out of pocket. And because they pay out of pocket this creates an actual market. Since the insurance-busting illnesses are paid by taxes, insurance rates should also be more reasonable.

Relying on private companies to "cover everything" is a fantasy since they're out to make money. Relying gov to "pay for everything" creates an incentive to seek unnecessary care. Having medical costs over a certain percent of your income always covered gives you incentive to stay healthy, gives you incentive to negotiate prices and shop around, and creates an actual market with no middle man.

[Edited on March 8, 2017 at 8:10 PM. Reason : ]

3/8/2017 8:10:10 PM

Quote :

"Relying gov to "pay for everything" creates an incentive to seek unnecessary care"

Quote :

"If you're poor you get a credit to pay"

Then what's the difference? And why not have a small co-pay instead of paying insurance companies?

We can have the same system almost every other first world country has. Health insurance is a scam and should be mostly, if not entirely, phased out.

[Edited on March 8, 2017 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2017 8:24:32 PM

^ for a poor person, the medicine for a flu could come to 10-15% of their income-- there's no getting around paying for these people.

I agree ditch the insurance companies. That's what me and Cuban mostly want to do.

3/8/2017 9:00:46 PM

Right, I'm just saying Cuban's plan leaves insurance companies in as an unnecessary middle man. Other, more efficient ways to solve the problem of unnecessary care.

3/8/2017 9:03:29 PM

^ right but they would be insuring something that costs an average of $15-20k for most people. That's cheaper than car insurance. And if someone isn't forced to buy this insurance (there's no reason they would be) I bet most people wouldn't.

What Cuban is sayinf It's practically what Canada has with slightly more "personal responsibility ".

3/8/2017 9:31:22 PM

Am I having a stroke, or did the hack just reference "personal responsibility" ITT????

3/9/2017 1:08:41 AM

We don't need police. Everyone should be personally responsible for their safety and their property.

3/9/2017 1:16:47 AM

it's almost like maybe the profit motive is the problem, and not a feature you are supposed to work around ¯\_(?)_/¯

3/9/2017 7:31:11 AM

"Not what Trump campaigned on: Senator on health care plan"

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/not-what-trump-campaigned-on-senator-on-health-care-plan-893792323869

Good discussion. Many Republicans against.

3/9/2017 9:04:35 AM

video requires flash player

3/9/2017 9:06:23 AM

Quote :

" right but they would be insuring something that costs an average of $15-20k for most people. That's cheaper than car insurance."

What? Or are you referring to what car insurance claims actually pay out?

Like many people have said, the only way to both reduce costs and not sacrifice quality for everyone while expanding access to care is some sort of single payer system. Otherwise, all we're really arguing about is how much we want to pay to make sure people who can't afford healthcare don't die. So once we've decided that we're not going to let people die but we're also not going to do single payer for all, the best method left to expand care is something similar to Obamacare.

As Republicans have learned, this means you need to regulate the private insurance industry while providing premium assistance and also incentivizing (or penalizing) people to maintain coverage. The reason why no GOP replacement plan has seen the light of day before now is because they all eventually reached this same conclusion. All it really does is reduce assistance for the poor to cut taxes on the rich. Obamacare was the largest redistribution of wealth in decades, it's no surprise that's the main thing they are looking to undo.

3/9/2017 10:52:44 AM

I am surprised noone has focused on removing the rule for full coverage (100% insurance payment) of preventative check ups.. this seems huge to me. Getting something checked and caught when it's a few thousand dollar problem before it becomes a tens or hundred thousand dollar problem seems like good for everyone paying..

[Edited on March 10, 2017 at 7:25 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 10, 2017 at 7:32 AM. Reason : .]

3/10/2017 7:24:25 AM

I honestly think the reason this problem is so "hard" to solve is because no one is talking about removing insurance entirely from the equation (unless that's what "single payer" means).

Eliminate that bullshit industry (at least, as it relates to healthcare) and you free up immense capital to handle health care for everyone.

You go to the doctor, you get a claim. You file the claim with your taxes. Government pays the claim and adjusts your taxes upward by some measure to compensate. Simple as that.

[Edited on March 10, 2017 at 9:51 AM. Reason : a]

3/10/2017 9:50:13 AM

That's single payer, except you don't pay more in taxes depending on the care you receive.

3/10/2017 10:08:58 AM

Ah, thanks. I need to read up on that. The health care stuff is so infuriating to me that I avoid it, unfortunately. Being a hypocrite, I suppose, haha.

3/10/2017 10:57:34 AM

Here's Bernie's plan. Good, easy read. Medicare for all = single payer.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

3/10/2017 11:09:09 AM

^How in the hell have people not signed on to this in Congress? Is the lobbying money THAT strong?

3/10/2017 11:47:42 AM

It's going to happen. May of last year, we were at 58% public support for a federally funded healthcare system

3/10/2017 11:57:45 AM

Short-term pain for long-term gain hopefully. It will certainly never happen in the current political setup.

3/10/2017 12:35:47 PM

that's my hope for this entire presidency, but i feel like we'll just end up with a desperate crawl back to the center-right

3/10/2017 12:41:58 PM

The Cruz/Sanders debate is worth a view if you haven't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL7W3MFvD4M

Bernie gets exposed when he is talking to the hair salon owner from Texas.

3/10/2017 12:50:13 PM

You are a hack

3/10/2017 5:42:26 PM

Or I just understand basic economics... something that separates normal people from Bernie bots/Socialists

3/10/2017 7:38:57 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/10/7-reasons-why-obamacare-2-0-is-all-but-guaranteed-to-impose-crushing-costs-on-voters-hurt-trumps-base-and-hand-power-back-to-the-democrats/

President Bannon has spoken. Ryancare is DOA.

3/10/2017 8:18:09 PM

Bring on the Randcare

3/10/2017 9:25:41 PM

What is that, a bottle of aspirin and a note that says "there is no charity in a free market?"

3/10/2017 10:53:32 PM

I think it is a dose of personal responsibility, with a side of leave people the fuck alone.

[Edited on March 11, 2017 at 12:40 AM. Reason : .]

3/11/2017 12:39:50 AM

some crazy ideas:

1. FDA approval is optional
2. put whole malpractice industry in unemployment line. Shield doctors from lawsuits if they have a license.
3. people own themselves. let insurance companies sell what people want
4. food stamp style system for people that actually have no money

3/11/2017 6:47:23 AM

1. We've been here before, thalidomide and snake oil. No thanks. It's a significant market failure in healthcare that it has some of the lowest symmetry of information of any market.

2. That's not free market/libertarian. A libertarian system REQUIRES courts to settle disputes, why would we let doctors off the hook if we don't let Wal-Mart or GE off the hook? Also google Texas and their malpractice caps. I think they were passed in 2011 or so, the state was FLOODED by shitty doctors with multiple malpractice suits against them, no thanks.

3. This means (without a doubt) that pre-existing conditions won't be covered. There are probably millions of people in this country (maybe 10s of millions?) that would be uninsurable.

4. So when you run out of stamps for the month, you.......die?

3/11/2017 7:33:34 AM

^

2. you are correct. the current system sucks tho, predatory lawyers tick me off. i dunno
4. no. was going back to my point on last page that we would be better off to pay for care and stay out how of its produced



[Edited on March 11, 2017 at 8:51 AM. Reason : s]

3/11/2017 8:48:27 AM

You must be personally responsible for your health after a company dumps toxic chemicals in the ground water and you get cancer.

Lolz!

3/11/2017 9:43:01 AM

Quote :

"Shield doctors from lawsuits if they have a license."

What do you call the person who graduates last in med school?

3/11/2017 12:45:13 PM

Quote :

"predatory lawyers tick me off. i dunno"

So your solution is to let docs negligently kill their patients with no recourse? That's a pretty extreme solution man. At least sheild that crazy by calling for tort reform or something.

3/11/2017 1:49:43 PM

^^ Captain

3/11/2017 3:46:24 PM

^ It was Sir for me.

3/11/2017 3:50:13 PM

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/10/workplace-wellness-genetic-testing/

Quote :

"A little-noticed bill moving through Congress would allow companies to require employees to undergo genetic testing or risk paying a penalty of thousands of dollars, and would let employers see that genetic and other health information."

3/12/2017 3:00:31 PM

Why do we look down on David Duke but allow Steve King to continue to hold office as a society?

How are they at all different?

https://twitter.com/stevekingia/status/840980755236999169

[Edited on March 12, 2017 at 3:19 PM. Reason : If this is who are as a nation, so be it]

3/12/2017 3:18:15 PM

lol remember though, it's about illegal immigration, legal immigrants are fine! Also economic anxiety.

[Edited on March 12, 2017 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2017 4:22:46 PM

[Edited on March 12, 2017 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2017 4:43:30 PM

Will be interesting to see the broader response amongst GOP to Steve King.

3/13/2017 12:29:11 AM

there won't be one

3/13/2017 12:31:51 AM

https://twitter.com/newday/status/841265364772257792

I mean, I'm glad we live in a country we can say whatever we want but can we please take care of this guy next cycle Iowa? Jesus...

3/13/2017 8:56:44 AM

wow

3/13/2017 10:48:01 AM

I think leftists having trouble differentiating Steve King's position from white supremacy is why there is such a big disconnect on immigration from the left and right.

If you watch the very end of that video, King makes a very important distinction between race and culture (not sure why it took him so long).

3/13/2017 11:11:36 AM

King gets away with saying that shit because there's a lot of people on the right and probably the left too that agree with it, especially when it comes to Islam. Focusing on the left specifically, the culture in many majority Muslim countries is totally antithetical to our beliefs and values. I think there's been a bit of tone deafness on this from Democratic politicians. They don't want to be seen as fueling bigotry, but at the same time some people won't take them seriously when they don't acknowledge Islamism as an actual problem.

3/13/2017 11:35:34 AM

^^ nope

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-king-tweet-geert-wilders-europe-immigration-2017-3

Conservative viewpoint.

[Edited on March 13, 2017 at 11:41 AM. Reason : King has been obsessed with European far right for a while now]

3/13/2017 11:40:35 AM

Not sure how you think a leftist opinion piece does anything to refute my post?

I think the left's problem is they are hesitant to acknowledge cultural supremacy. They are so caught up pursuing the mythical multicultural socialist utopia that their entire policy on immigration has devolved into "Pro-immigrant no matter what, then call the right racist".

3/13/2017 12:01:40 PM

I mean that is exactly the opposite of what that piece says...

Quote :

"There's nothing wrong with a country making immigration policy based on what kind of society it wants to build. That policy shouldn't aim at producing ethnic homogeneity. But we should be able to explain what it does aim to build. An immigration policy based on clear, non-ethnicity-based principles - similar to the "points" systems used in Canada and Australia that favor highly skilled and English-proficient immigrants - would make it easier to win over voters who are not committed to King's thinly disguised concerns about ethnicity, but who may have a vague concern that many immigrants are not a "good fit" for the United States."

3/13/2017 12:09:30 PM

Quote :

"King is known for making racially charged commentary. Last year, at the Republican National Convention, King questioned contributions to civilization by nonwhites. In 2013, he described children in the country illegally as having "calves the size of cantaloupes because they've been hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.""

3/13/2017 12:21:49 PM