The Next President is...

[Kiloalpha]

Yes, I'm posting a link instead of writing a ton of information, but I really think Rep. Dan Crenshaw did a good job talking about medical reform with Dr. Avik Roy. https://holdthesetruthswithdancrenshaw.libsyn.com/a-more-sensible-approach-to-fixing-health-care-dr-avik-roy

Dr. Roy has done some interesting studies that conclude while the US is a good system, we could do better... and Medicare for all is not the answer. He mentions a catastrophic care system (which I've been in favor of for a while) while using the market to give user choices, while not leaving those with pre-existing conditions out.

Worth the 34min if you have time.

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, HossHarris said:

Where in the constitution does it say the federal government has a duty to protect the citizenry from financial ruin?

This sidesteps the original question.  If we as a country are ok with it, then nothing to see and we keep walking on.  If we aren't, then we should have an actual discussion about what should change in order to help that...does it involve state solutions, constitutional amendment, or expansion of existing programs, etc.  Ignoring a problem that is affecting more and more people every year because it wasn't mentioned on a 200 year old document is a bit short sighted.

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, lloyd christmas said:

It doesn't.  Even if health care is believed to be a "right", the gov doesn't subsidize any of our other rights provided by the constitution.  Why should health care be any different?  Especially when so many of us do not take care of ourselves.  

Why should I, a civilian, pay for the premiums of military dependents under Tricare Prime? They didn't sign up for military service. They're not critical for national defense and security.

[lloyd christmas]

34 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Why should I, a civilian, pay for the premiums of military dependents under Tricare Prime? They didn't sign up for military service. They're not critical for national defense and security.

There is a difference in the government covering health care costs for service members/their families and people that are not employed by the US government.  The US government is not responsible for the health care for ALL citizens.

FWIW,  I had to read your post over and over again to see if I was missing something.  Are you really advocating on a military forum for the gov to not pay for health care of service member's dependents because they did not sign up for military service?  And that they are not critical for national defense and security?  

Edited October 20, 2020 by lloyd christmas

[Motofalcon]

2 hours ago, HossHarris said:

Where in the constitution does it say the federal government has a duty to protect the citizenry from financial ruin?

“...promote the general welfare...” is probably the catchall. 
Is it good if Americans are healthy?  Yes. Is it good if Americans are wealthy? Yes. 
I’m not saying that everyone just gets to be rich because America is rich (a la UAE), but to me, healthcare is like the road system. We all pay for it, some people happen to use it more than others, it helps us all.  Isn’t that the point of government?  To help the majority of the populace?

[Guardian]

We as a country have determined that we want certain segments of the population to have government supported health care and have for more than 50 years. Why is expanding this out to include others a bad thing if the voting populous determines that is what they want? 

Because it is stealing from some for the benefit of others. And it takes personal responsibility out of the equation.

[Guardian]

How do you separate the insurance aspect from healthcare? I’m not sure there’s a conversation to be had about the”best healthcare system in the world” without considering insurance in the equation. As far as “healthcare is not a right”, it’s abundantly clear that the majority of Americans would like it to be. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/most-continue-to-say-ensuring-health-care-coverage-is-governments-responsibility/ 

Just because a majority wants to steal from others doesn’t mean it’s right.

[Guardian]

Need more information... What defines "best" regarding healthcare? This is probably the fundamental question regarding healthcare policy. So what is best? Cutting edge technologies and research in treatments? Access to basic care at adorable prices? Access to basic care covered by taxes? Access to emergency/preventative/diagnostic care?

You also make a strong assumption that you can separate insurance from the healthcare system. So long as people may need to pay for medical treatments that they can't afford to pay out of pocket for, insurance will be a factor in the discussion. It's like saying car insurance should be made optional (especially if you believe healthcare is not a right, since most people don't consider driving a car a right).

As military members, it's easy to have a skewed opinion, as Tricare has pretty good coverage and is significantly cheaper than anything comparable on the open market.

I didn’t make an assumption. I stated something. That our health care (the act of giving or receiving medical treatment) is the best in the world. I made that statement. Then said I wasn’t talking about insurance. Re read my statement.

Health care isn’t a right. It’s not included in the bill of rights.

Health care is three things. But it can only be two of them at any given time. Cheap, accessible, and good. In America we make the medicine that drives the rest of the worlds medicine. Anyone can access the health care in America. But it ain’t cheap. When it becomes cheap it either has to lose the accessible or the good. They can’t all 3 stand at the same time. As for what makes it the best? Look at our mortality rates across the board and the accessibility of care. When you lose the expense then you lose quality and likely accessibility

Also yes we in the military have good health care. The military is a volunteer force. Hence you volunteered and as a bi product receive good health care. I get that there are people that can’t serve. But there is a large majority of people in this county that are told live your truth, big is beautiful, take drugs if you want, and these people have higher likely hood of medical issues. And free health care for all then glorifies their negative choices and steals from others. Because the money has to come from somewhere. Same thing with the stupid free college for all push. It’s just immoral. It’s a lie. And it’s stealing. Bottom line it’s sick.

[Guardian]

I’m curious as to what qualifies the US healthcare system as the best in the world. Is it the fact that the best possible care that exists happens to be in the US?

What good does something that is unattainable to a slew of Americans do? It might as well not exist to them.

Should getting decent healthcare really be something that drives people into the red? Why? Don’t we have a duty to our fellow man to help them out? The system in place now, doesn’t work for a lot of people. Without insurance and pretty solid job security I’d be in major debt through zero fault of my own. Health issues are someone else’s problem until you or someone close to you is fighting them...

This one is more philosophical than an actual question: So, happiness is a right, but being healthy to enjoy it isn’t? I’m just curious.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

See my above response for why the US is the best.

Your question about it being unattainable isn’t a good question.

Do we have a duty to our fellow man? Yes. I should help those in my community of my own volition. I shouldn’t have to pay money or face a threat at the end of a gun if I don’t want to pay for someone else’s health care. The government shouldn’t force me to pay for other peoples things. That’s not what the government is for. That’s what churches or community outreach groups are for.

I agree with you. Obama care doesn’t work.

Please educate me. Where does it say happiness is a right?

Where does it say being healthy or receiving health care is a right?

You are using half truths and mis quotes strung together in a non logical way to try and make a point. It ends up hurting your point.

[Guardian]

Why can't we start here:
Are we as a culture ok with people falling into unrecoverable lifelong poverty and never returning to be productive taxpaying citizens for what amounts to losing a medical lottery?
I think the large majority of people would agree something should be done.  If so, what?

What are you talking about?

[Guardian]

This sidesteps the original question.  If we as a country are ok with it, then nothing to see and we keep walking on.  If we aren't, then we should have an actual discussion about what should change in order to help that...does it involve state solutions, constitutional amendment, or expansion of existing programs, etc.  Ignoring a problem that is affecting more and more people every year because it wasn't mentioned on a 200 year old document is a bit short sighted.

We as a country are not okay with theft. The problem isn’t the symptoms. Fix the health issue by being healthy. Not by glorifying big is beautiful. And on and on.

[Guardian]

“...promote the general welfare...” is probably the catchall. 
Is it good if Americans are healthy?  Yes. Is it good if Americans are wealthy? Yes. 
I’m not saying that everyone just gets to be rich because America is rich (a la UAE), but to me, healthcare is like the road system. We all pay for it, some people happen to use it more than others, it helps us all.  Isn’t that the point of government?  To help the majority of the populace?

Have you ever looked up what the average American makes compared to the rest of the world? It’s eye opening how comparatively rich even a waitress in the US is to the median of the world.

I might recommend for you to look up why the National road system and the military are not examples of socialistic policies like health care for all is no matter how hard liberal ideology wants you to believe it.

[slackline]

Yes, I'm posting a link instead of writing a ton of information, but I really think Rep. Dan Crenshaw did a good job talking about medical reform with Dr. Avik Roy. https://holdthesetruthswithdancrenshaw.libsyn.com/a-more-sensible-approach-to-fixing-health-care-dr-avik-roy
Dr. Roy has done some interesting studies that conclude while the US is a good system, we could do better... and Medicare for all is not the answer. He mentions a catastrophic care system (which I've been in favor of for a while) while using the market to give user choices, while not leaving those with pre-existing conditions out.
Worth the 34min if you have time.

Thanks for posting this. I’ll try to give it a watch this afternoon.

Hey Guardian, this is an example of moving things forward, not just saying, “you’re wrong and your argument is stupid” because you somehow think you’re right. You’re one of the main guys I was referring to who thinks his poop doesn’t stink. You, I guess, have a copyright on being correct...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[slackline]

See my above response for why the US is the best.

Your question about it being unattainable isn’t a good question.

Do we have a duty to our fellow man? Yes. I should help those in my community of my own volition. I shouldn’t have to pay money or face a threat at the end of a gun if I don’t want to pay for someone else’s health care. The government shouldn’t force me to pay for other peoples things. That’s not what the government is for. That’s what churches or community outreach groups are for.

I agree with you. Obama care doesn’t work.

Please educate me. Where does it say happiness is a right?

Where does it say being healthy or receiving health care is a right?

You are using half truths and mis quotes strung together in a non logical way to try and make a point. It ends up hurting your point.

Your response above does not answer the question. At all. Also, your comments about the Good, Accessible, and Cheap isn’t a catch-all. Also, there’s a chasm between accessible and not accessible and cheap and expensive.

Why is affordable so offensive to you? You are in a job where we have to stay healthy, yet there’s tons of fatties in the military. Every excuse you can think of exists. I happen to agree with you that people should do a much better job of taking care of themselves, but I don’t think they should be financially ruined if they didn’t.

Please, tell me why my question about it being unattainable isn’t good. This is more of “Guardian deciding what is legit and what isn’t” that I mentioned earlier. Somehow you think you’re the only one making valid statements/questions.

I think you’re taking a wildly slippery slope here talking about forcing you to pay for other people’s healthcare. I’m going to take a page out of your book and simply say, “your point isn’t good, you’re using half truths in a non logical way and it hurts your point.” Why? Because I said so. That’s apparently all the validation you need, so I’m going to do the same.

You’re right, it’s not in the constitution, but our founders certainly believed in the pursuit of happiness as it was in the Declaration of Independence. “Unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Kind of a big deal, give it a read. There’s a good catch all that should allow our government to do better to find a way to take care of our people.

That’s all most of us are getting after in here, not advocating for a specific way to do it, but we maintain that the richest country in the world ought to be able to do a better job at taking care of its people than we do.

Stop blaming it on unhealthy fatties as well! There’s hundreds of thousands in this country that lost the lottery, and just have crappy health. No amount of eating right or exercise will change their health issues. Shouldn’t we help them without bankrupting them?

I totally recognize my arguments are not infallible, but man, you gotta stop acting as if yours are...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

22 minutes ago, slackline said:

That’s all most of us are getting after in here, not advocating for a specific way to do it, but we maintain that the richest country in the world ought to be able to do a better job at taking care of its people than we do.

Stop blaming it on unhealthy fatties as well! There’s hundreds of thousands in this country that lost the lottery, and just have crappy health. No amount of eating right or exercise will change their health issues. Shouldn’t we help them without bankrupting them?
 

I read this as you want universal healthcare, but are unable/unwilling to advocate the specific way in which to do it.  Who doesn't want healthcare for everyone? Anyone?

The difference is, some people at least attempt the logical thought experiment as to how we get from where we are, to where we'd like to be, and realize the math doesn't work when you simply demand our "rich" government pay for it. You can't make 2+2=7. Others just demand things. You might demand you want your car to fly, tomorrow. Are you sure? I can definitely make your car fly tomorrow, but how do you think it will end? The specific way in which we provide universal health care is important.

Why did our forefathers not write the words "...Unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and Happiness?". Think about it.

 

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, Guardian said:

Just because a majority wants to steal from others doesn’t mean it’s right.

Um, so I suppose you think that mandatory car insurance is unconstitutional as well? Insurance 101: Everybody pays in, just in case & only a few will end up actually using the service. The idea behind mandating certain types of insurance (like car insurance), is that it doesn’t really work unless it’s universal. This holds true for healthcare. I might decide to save a few bucks and roll the dice with my health, but this makes it more expensive for everyone else and they’re still on the hook when/if I require emergency services that may have been unnecessary with preventative care. The argument is that a healthy population is good for the nation as a whole and it’s cheaper in the long run to do preventative maintenance than to try to fix a catastrophic breakdown. 

[gearhog]

42 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Um, so I suppose you think that mandatory car insurance is unconstitutional as well? Insurance 101: Everybody pays in, just in case & only a few will end up actually using the service. The idea behind mandating certain types of insurance (like car insurance), is that it doesn’t really work unless it’s universal. This holds true for healthcare. I might decide to save a few bucks and roll the dice with my health, but this makes it more expensive for everyone else and they’re still on the hook when/if I require emergency services that may have been unnecessary with preventative care. The argument is that a healthy population is good for the nation as a whole and it’s cheaper in the long run to do preventative maintenance than to try to fix a catastrophic breakdown. 

I'm looking at my mandatory payroll deductions. Where does one find "car insurance"? Is it under FICA or Federal Income Tax Withholding?

Also, does your private sector auto insurance company that you have selected to do business with have high risk and low risk designations? How does it affect your rates?

Edited October 20, 2020 by torqued

[slackline]

I read this as you want universal healthcare, but are unable/unwilling to advocate the specific way in which to do it.  Who doesn't want healthcare for everyone? Anyone?
The difference is, some people at least attempt the logical thought experiment as to how we get from where we are, to where we'd like to be, and realize the math doesn't work when you simply demand our "rich" government pay for it. You can't make 2+2=7. Others just demand things. You might demand you want your car to fly, tomorrow. Are you sure? I can definitely make your car fly tomorrow, but how do you think it will end? The specific way in which we provide universal health care is important.
Why did our forefathers not write the words "...Unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and Happiness?". Think about it.
 

That's quite a stretch to say I'm looking for universal healthcare based off me saying it should be accessible. Nott looking for free, but we shouldn't be bankrupting anyone because they got cancer. Why is that so ridiculous a request?

I also said I don't have the answer. But certain people are unwilling to start the conversation because you can't get passed, "no, it's expensive". I've always told my guys, tell your boss "yes, but" and I've always told my bosses "yes, but". That should be the starting point. "No!" seems to be the only starting point some of you are willing to consider...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slackline]

I'm looking at my mandatory payroll deductions. Where does one find "car insurance"? Is it under FICA or Federal Income Tax Withholding?
Also, does your private sector auto insurance company that you have selected to do business with have high risk and low risk designations? How does it affect your rates?

You're ignoring the point. Car insurance is mandatory, and you can face repercussions/fines/penalties for not having it. Just because it doesn't come out of your paycheck upon receipt, doesn't change the law. Is that somehow unconstitutional?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jazzdude]

I didn’t make an assumption. I stated something. That our health care (the act of giving or receiving medical treatment) is the best in the world. I made that statement. Then said I wasn’t talking about insurance. Re read my statement.

Health care isn’t a right. It’s not included in the bill of rights.

Health care is three things. But it can only be two of them at any given time. Cheap, accessible, and good. In America we make the medicine that drives the rest of the worlds medicine. Anyone can access the health care in America. But it ain’t cheap. When it becomes cheap it either has to lose the accessible or the good. They can’t all 3 stand at the same time. As for what makes it the best? Look at our mortality rates across the board and the accessibility of care. When you lose the expense then you lose quality and likely accessibility

Also yes we in the military have good health care. The military is a volunteer force. Hence you volunteered and as a bi product receive good health care. I get that there are people that can’t serve. But there is a large majority of people in this county that are told live your truth, big is beautiful, take drugs if you want, and these people have higher likely hood of medical issues. And free health care for all then glorifies their negative choices and steals from others. Because the money has to come from somewhere. Same thing with the stupid free college for all push. It’s just immoral. It’s a lie. And it’s stealing. Bottom line it’s sick.

Best can mean a lot of things to different people, and that's something that needs to be understood going into this discussion. If you can't see that there may be other definitions of what best means regarding healthcare, then any debate is meaningless.

And you can't separate insurance from this discussion, so long as healthcare costs more than people can pay out of pocket for. That ignores 2 of the points you made: accessiblility and cost (cheap).

Have you been following the discussions on changes in military healthcare? Dependents are starting to get pushed off base as MTFs downsize. However, even though they have decent insurance, people have found it challenging to find off base PCMs willing to take on new patients. Premiums for retiree Tricare are creeping up (though still way below open market prices), and the new-ish Tricare for Life adds additional cost on top of that (due to having to sign up/pay for Medicare).

Defense isn't cheap. Was what we spent in Afghanistan worth it? Did that campaign make us stronger as a nation, or further essential national goals worth the price we paid? There are many on the left that say the defense budget is theft as well. Like you said, that money has to come from somewhere.

Healthcare would be an investment in our society. Access to routine and preventative care should help more people be productive members of society. The question is how much to invest and what level of care to provide.

[jazzdude]

I read this as you want universal healthcare, but are unable/unwilling to advocate the specific way in which to do it.  Who doesn't want healthcare for everyone? Anyone?
The difference is, some people at least attempt the logical thought experiment as to how we get from where we are, to where we'd like to be, and realize the math doesn't work when you simply demand our "rich" government pay for it. You can't make 2+2=7. Others just demand things. You might demand you want your car to fly, tomorrow. Are you sure? I can definitely make your car fly tomorrow, but how do you think it will end? The specific way in which we provide universal health care is important.

Well put.

[gearhog]

3 minutes ago, slackline said:

You're ignoring the point. Car insurance is mandatory, and you can face repercussions/fines/penalties for not having it. Just because it doesn't come out of your paycheck upon receipt, doesn't change the law. Is that somehow unconstitutional?

I don't think you understand the point. Is it "mandatory"? If it were in the same way you advocate for universal healthcare, why do millions of Americans not have car insurance? If you earn enough to purchase a car, smart enough to pass a driving test, skilled enough to get licensed, and hurl 3000lbs of steel down the highway putting other people, including myself,  and other people's property at risk of death and damage, I'd like to know that I'd get compensated if I also choose to do the same and you make a mistake. It's a choice for both of us.

 

[Sim]

23 hours ago, drewpey said:

A millionaire who lies repeatedly when it's convenient to him

 

[slackline]

I don't think you understand the point. Is it "mandatory"? If it were in the same way you advocate for universal healthcare, why do millions of Americans not have car insurance? If you earn enough to purchase a car, smart enough to pass a driving test, skilled enough to get licensed, and hurl 3000lbs of steel down the highway putting other people, including myself,  and other people's property at risk of death and damage, I'd like to know that I'd get compensated if I also choose to do the same and you make a mistake. It's a choice for both of us.
 

Once again, you’re missing the point, but it’s clear you’re unwilling to see anything other than your own side, so I’ll just stop... How on earth do you not see the similarities?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

Thanks for posting this. I’ll try to give it a watch this afternoon.

Hey Guardian, this is an example of moving things forward, not just saying, “you’re wrong and your argument is stupid” because you somehow think you’re right. You’re one of the main guys I was referring to who thinks his poop doesn’t stink. You, I guess, have a copyright on being correct...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nope. I just actually argue with facts and reason and not personal attacks and made up things. My poop absolutely stinks. I just happen to be able to call out when others arguments don’t make sense.