Trump To Sign Executive Orders Protecting Preexisting Conditions

[Court Jester]

As a European socialist who has worked under universal healthcare in Europe and have seen the disaster of the US healthcare since I am now working in the US, the problem is that ideologues like you refuse to see what works all around the developed world where countries spend HALF of what the US spends per capita for healthcare and are still able to have universal healthcare and over time have increased their life expectancy above that of the US. They also have a system where health insurance is NOT tied to the employer which gives more security and negotiating power to the workers who are not afraid of losing healthcare benefits if they also lose for some reason their job.

The United States is not Europe. You don't have millions of fat 3rd world losers like we do in some of our urban cities.

My healthcare is fine---- top notch and always has been. You get what you pay for and I don't mind the added cost for the best. What I do mind is giving it away free to idiots who haven't paid for it. I really don't care if people are too dumb to prioritize and manage their own lives.... but I'm sure you don't get that being a socialist and all.

Socialism works great for you until you run out of other people's money.

 

[pamak]

I knew the debate would finally get to that.

Liberal progressive socialists cannot hear the truth. Truth either doesn't compute, or forces them to face reality. Much easier to force everyone else to bail people out then stand up their own feet. Perpetual victims; always someone else's fault for their personal financial failure in life. Too many years of getting trophies for failure, too many years of someone telling them they were "special" without any effort or prove of success.

Reality and accountability is a bridge too far for a socialist.

In case you are not aware in which society you live, let me remind you the different types of limited liability laws that protect big corporations and even smaller business based on the idea that if a business person fails and ends up owing more than what his whole business worths, he can walk away by declaring bankruptcy without paying the difference and transfer the burden of the unpaid cost to the rest of the society...

 

[pamak]

The United States is not Europe. You don't have millions of fat 3rd world losers like we do in some of our urban cities.

My healthcare is fine---- top notch and always has been. You get what you pay for and I don't mind the added cost for the best. What I do mind is giving it away free to idiots who haven't paid for it. I really don't care if people are too dumb to prioritize and manage their own lives.... but I'm sure you don't get that being a socialist and all.

Socialism works great for you until you run out of other people's money.

Sorry, but this does not fly because the Europe did not have a developed universal healthcare system, it lagged in life expectancy BEHIND the "fat" Americans. So, it is obvious that the results cannot be explained by what you pick as a disadvantage for the Americans. Not to mention that many European countries have much higher rates of smoking. So spare me with your cherry and irrational picking...

As was expected, the conversation with a conservative ends up with "me" and "my." Sure, for the upper 50% the US healthcare works, but I can argue that even for this upper 50%, there is an incentive to lower the cost to the level we see in other countries. And there is nothing to suggest that the x2 price of the US healthcare system gives any measurable qualitative advantages. And finally, when people talk about policies, they also have to make sure that the system works for the bottom 50%.


Cliches are not substitute for arguments. It is irrational to talk about running out of money when socialist healthcare is actually CHEAPER per capita!

 

[Court Jester]

Sorry, but this does not fly because the Europe did not have a developed universal healthcare system, it lagged in life expectancy BEHIND the "fat" Americans. So, it is obvious that the results cannot be explained by what you pick as a disadvantage for the Americans. Not to mention that many European countries have much higher rates of smoking. So spare me with your cherry and irrational picking...

The United States is a big nation with many different types of people. People who are smarter and more responsible manage fine here. The rest....well, you can't really make a silk purse out of a sow's ear as they say.

As was expected, the conversation with a conservative ends up with "me" and "my." Sure, for the upper 50% the US healthcare works, but I can argue that even for this upper 50%, there is an incentive to lower the cost to the level we see in other countries.

One way to lower costs is to manage care, and then the other way is to deny, delay, or re prioritize care the way they do in Europe. So, for the upper 50% why would they want to have less premium care or options, only to provide free or subsidized care to people who never made their healthcare insurance a priority in their lives?

That is the goal of socialize, to redistribute everything to be "fair". So when you charge it is a "me and my" thing for those who are the "haves". Well, yeah sure. You have no ethical aversion to take from the haves, to give to the have nots. But for a socialist it is ALWAYS about your "me and my"--- you aren't offering what you have, you want what we have.

Nothing is stopping you from giving away all you have to the poor----go ahead. For the rest of us we already give enough, and we want our healthcare that works for us. Some of us don't mind the cost if what we get is quality that we don't have to wait in line for a year to get.

And there is nothing to suggest that the x2 price of the US healthcare system gives any measurable qualitative advantages. And finally, when people talk about policies, they also have to make sure that the system works for the bottom 50%.

There has always been a vast difference in quality of healthcare services. Some cars are Cadillacs, some are Toyotas--- you get what you pay for. I pay for what I want, not what you want, and I am not ashamed to say so.

Cliches are not substitute for arguments. It is irrational to talk about running out of money when socialist healthcare is actually CHEAPER per capita!

Yeah, cheaper for freeloaders.

 

[pamak]

The United States is a big nation with many different types of people. People who are smarter and more responsible manage fine here. The rest....well, you can't really make a silk purse out of a sow's ear as they say.



Only way to lower costs is to manage care. Another way to say that is to deny care, or re prioritize care the way they do in Europe. So, for the upper 50% why would they want to have less premium care or options, only to provide free or subsidized care to people who never made their healthcare insurance a priority in their lives?

That is the goal of socialize, to redistribute everything to be "fair". So when you charge it is a "me and my" thing for those who are the "haves". Well, yeah sure. You have no ethical aversion to take from the haves, to give to the have nots. But for a socialist it is ALWAYS about your "me and my"--- you aren't offering what you have, you want what we have.

Nothing is stopping you from giving away all you have to the poor----go ahead. For the rest of us we already give enough, and we want our healthcare that works for us. Some of us don't mind the cost if what we get is quality that we don't have to wait in line for a year to get.




There has always been a vast difference in quality of healthcare services. Some cars are Cadillacs, some are Toyotas--- you get what you pay for. I pay for what I want, not what you want, and I am not ashamed to say so.



Yeah, cheaper for freeloaders.

Sorry but you have to explain how EVERY state in the US which has population similar to that of many European countries fails to have a system which provides universal healthcare at half the price.


There are many ways to lower the cost, including imposing fines to those who do not participate (which was upheld in the Supreme Court), reduce patent rights for drug companies that base their research on federal subsidies and so on. And for the upper 50% (at least those between 50-70%), there is a benefit in remaking a healthcare system so that health insurance is not tied to the employer. This gives more flexibility to even higher paid workers to negotiate better salaries or withstand the consequences of a job loss without worrying also about retaining their health plan.

I showed how the "haves" often do business and make money based on limited liability laws. So, I do not buy that personal responsibility is the only concern for the "haves." They, and the society in general, is willing to accept limitations of personal responsibility even in the business environment. The problem with many conservatives is that they grossly simplify societal policies and they wrongly think that for certain issues, like in the economy the "haves" rely SOLELY on personal responsibility which is a naive take of how we have structured our economy.


History has shown that social problems are not addressed with charities. Charities can help but they cannot be a substitute for policies. This is obvious when one sees how the Americans (who take pride in how generous and they are compared to other nations) are have the wealthiest country in the world and at the same time have some of the most extreme cases of poverty and high numbers of uninsured people.


You may say that you get what you pay for but this is not true. In the US, you will get a pill at price numerous times above the price that you get the same pill in other developed countries. And the argument that supposedly there is more innovation in the US is bogus. The US pharmas spend way more on advertising than on research. Not to mention the cases of aggressively promoting opioids with the well known consequences. Also, the private insurance company will require profit for its operation. Then government insurance will not require such profit. The doctor gets a much higher salary than his counterpart in another system, and the list goes on...