Dems take back the House? Be careful what you wish for...

[HisArpy]

Um, shifting the actual cost of HC for sick individuals onto healthy individuals, is literally what health insurance, and a risk pool, is. A lot of people paying in, so that the few who are unfortunate, can withdraw. Single payer is literally the biggest possible risk pool that can exist within the borders of a nation.

If you are worried that a lack of co-payments would make people not "take care of themselves" because the health care is free...

a. ...what?
b. No, seriously, what?
c. If anything, it should encourage people to seek preventive healthcare, which is relatively cheap, instead of putting it off, thus minimizing the need for the much more expensive catastrophic care later.
c. Co-payments can be built into a single-payer system.

It's not a "risk pool" because there is no "risk". You can't lower your premiums by taking better care of yourself and/or not needing medical care.

How the hell did you interpret that I was concerned about co pays? Are you drunk or something? My concern is that I'm paying higher costs because I'm being forced to subsidize the lame and sick with no benefit to ME.

I don't get "better" HC, I only get "more expensive" HC of lower quality than I have now. WTF should I want that? WTF should ANYONE want that?

 

[Liar]

It's not a "risk pool" because there is no "risk". You can't lower your premiums by taking better care of yourself and/or not needing medical care.

That's not what the term means. It means that you pool everyone's risk and skin in the game together. The very basis of the concept of insurance. Private or public.

How the hell did you interpret that I was concerned about co pays? Are you drunk or something? My concern is that I'm paying higher costs because I'm being forced to subsidize the lame and sick with no benefit to ME.

You are already subsidizing the lame and the sick. With no benifit for you. Except that when you get lame and sick, which you will unless you go from perfect health to instant death, others will subsidize you.

That's how it works now with your private insurance. And that's how it would work with single-payer.

I don't get "better" HC, I only get "more expensive" HC of lower quality than I have now. WTF should I want that? WTF should ANYONE want that?

Again, you have not made a case for why your health care would get more expensive. Today you pay your healthcare via private insurance and the healcare of the poor (and vets adn the elderly et al) via taxes. Under single payer you would pay for both via taxes. That is literally the key difference.

You are claiming this would be more expensive and lead to lower quality. Both of those are mere speculation on your part.

 

[HisArpy]

That's not what the term means. It means that you pool everyone's risk and skin in the game together. The very basis of the concept of insurance. Private or public.

You are already subsidizing the lame and the sick. With no benifit for you. Except that when you get lame and sick, which you will unless you go from perfect health to instant death, others will subsidize you.

That's how it works now with your private insurance. And that's how it would work with single-payer.

Again, you have not made a case for why your health care would get more expensive. Today you pay your healthcare via private insurance and the healcare of the poor (and vets adn the elderly et al) via taxes. Under single payer you would pay for both via taxes. That is literally the key difference.

You are claiming this would be more expensive and lead to lower quality. Both of those are mere speculation on your part.

It's not speculation. It's well known that those in single payer systems come HERE to the US for "quality" HC, if they can afford it.

You forget that under the present system I can completely forego purchasing HC. Yet, if I'm forced to pay via taxes, I cannot so that. How is that a benefit to me?

Insurance is based on risk pools. Plural, not singular. If you take care of yourself and don't need to use your insurance, then you get better rates because you're a lower risk. Single payer completely eliminates that and swaps in the increased costs necessitated by those who ARE sick and/or disabled who need expensive treatment and care. This is not for MY benefit, it's for theirs.

And how is doubling or quadrupling my insurance costs not "increasing" my HC costs. You say I pay it anyway, but what if I don't? What if I never use my HC insurance? Can you fairly say I pay those hidden costs anyway? Maybe you believe that, but I don't.

 

[TalkRadio1]

DNC CEO: ‘I don't know’ how to pay for single- payer healthcare

Democratic National Committee CEO Seema Nanda admitted Tuesday that she does not know how to pay for the Democrats’ “very expensive” single-payer health care plan.

Nanda was asked at a Yahoo Finance summit how Democrats plan to pay for the “very expensive … $3 trillion a year” Medicare-for-all plan that Democratic candidates ran on in the 2018 midterm elections.

"Your answer is I don’t know how we’re going to get there but these are all big conversations we need to be engaged in,” Nanda said.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/dnc-seema-nanda-pay-health-care/

 

[Liar]

It's not speculation. It's well known that those in single payer systems come HERE to the US for "quality" HC, if they can afford it.

There are some really good niche specialist in the US. That is however a separate beast than good general health care. Which IS good in the US, but not uniquely so.

You forget that under the present system I can completely forego purchasing HC. Yet, if I'm forced to pay via taxes, I cannot so that. How is that a benefit to me?

It prevents you from not having health coverage. Which unless you are independently wealthy is an objectively stupid thing to do. Yep, it's the nanny state. But really, some people seem to need one.

Insurance is based on risk pools. Plural, not singular. If you take care of yourself and don't need to use your insurance, then you get better rates because you're a lower risk. Single payer completely eliminates that and swaps in the increased costs necessitated by those who ARE sick and/or disabled who need expensive treatment and care. This is not for MY benefit, it's for theirs.

Insurance is based on pooling. It can be several smaller pools with different risk levels, yes. But that's not what defines it. It can also be one giant-ass mega pool.

Now, you may not like a system with giant-ass mega pool. That's fair. But that doesn't make it not insurance.

And how is doubling or quadrupling my insurance costs not "increasing" my HC costs. You say I pay it anyway, but what if I don't? What if I never use my HC insurance? Can you fairly say I pay those hidden costs anyway? Maybe you believe that, but I don't.

This paragraph makes no sense. I have literally no idea what you are trying to say.

Why and where would your insurance cost be doubled or quadrupled?

The only thing I've said you pay anyway is taxes, to finance medicaid and the rest. What if you don't? Well the IRS are gonna get stabby, I suppose.

If you never use your HC insurance? Congratulations on a healthy life.

 

[Que]

There are some really good niche specialist in the US. That is however a separate beast than good general health care. Which IS good in the US, but not uniquely so.

It prevents you from not having health coverage. Which unless you are independently wealthy is an objectively stupid thing to do. Yep, it's the nanny state. But really, some people seem to need one.

Insurance is based on pooling. It can be several smaller pools with different risk levels, yes. But that's not what defines it. It can also be one giant-ass mega pool.

Now, you may not like a system with giant-ass mega pool. That's fair. But that doesn't make it not insurance.

This paragraph makes no sense. I have literally no idea what you are trying to say.

Why and where would your insurance cost be doubled or quadrupled?

The only thing I've said you pay anyway is taxes, to finance medicaid and the rest. What if you don't? Well the IRS are gonna get stabby, I suppose.

If you never use your HC insurance? Congratulations on a healthy life.

That's a pretty silly definition of an insurance. By your definition then collectivist agrarian schemes are merely crop insurance specialists.

 

[Liar]

That's a pretty silly definition of an insurance. By your definition then collectivist agrarian schemes are merely crop insurance specialists.

Eeh. Could be in theory, but the Kolchoses were not about risk pooling really but about a collectivist delusion of monoculture, both in people and crops. Which is in part why they didn't work. A healthcare system, big or small, will always be about aggregation of diverse individual situations. It's granular by nature.

 

[Que]

Eeh. Could be in theory, but the Kolchoses were not about risk pooling really but about a collectivist delusion of monoculture, both in people and crops. Which is in part why they didn't work. A healthcare system, big or small, will always be about aggregation of diverse individual situations. It's granular by nature.

..and you are not "insuring" anything when you simply decide to pay for everything as it comes up.

There is an alternate view though that would support your point of view. I had an instructor once that was pointing out how everything is in essence insuring something. For example you take out a mortgage especially in a state like mine that has a law making all such collateralized contacts non-recourse contracts you are insuring the downside. If the property loses more value than you have borrowed you can walk away from it and you have laid off that risk on the bank. By taking up a mortgage in the first place you've tied up the property insuring that if there is an upside you are able to profit from that.

The idea though of an infinite pool makes the concept of a pool ridiculous. The whole point to having pools of risk is you choose to swim in the least expensive pool that you're qualified to swim in. Because of your associations, because of your particular risks or whatever it requires to have admission to the pool.

 

[TalkRadio1]

CBC votes no confidence in Democratic Chair Perez

The Congressional Black Caucus passed a vote of no confidence in Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez on Wednesday, the latest sign of lingering bad blood between lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the Democratic Party’s top official.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/14/congressional-black-caucus-tom-perez-991270

 

[Luk]

It Was A Big, Blue Wave: Democrats Pick Up Most House Seats In A Generation​

Votes are still being counted in several House races. But the AP has now called another race in New Jersey, projecting Democrat Andy Kim the winner in the suburban Philadelphia 3rd Congressional District over incumbent Republican Tom MacArthur.

That means, more than a week after Election Day, Democrats have increased their House gains to a net of 34 seats — and, when all the vote is counted, they may get to 39.

Make no mistake: That is a very big wave.

 

[HisArpy]

It Was A Big, Blue Wave: Democrats Pick Up Most House Seats In A Generation​

Votes are still being counted in several House races. But the AP has now called another race in New Jersey, projecting Democrat Andy Kim the winner in the suburban Philadelphia 3rd Congressional District over incumbent Republican Tom MacArthur.

That means, more than a week after Election Day, Democrats have increased their House gains to a net of 34 seats — and, when all the vote is counted, they may get to 39.

Make no mistake: That is a very big wave.

It was nothing of the sort and promoting the propaganda won't make it so.

The D's LOST seats in the Senate, Governors mansions, and State legislatures. Again.

There were something like 85 seats that the D's could have picked up and they only got 34/39? And that with record voter turnouts? In a year where the State races for those seats favored D's heavily?

It wasn't a wave. You can keep on telling yourself that lie, but it wasn't anything even close to a wave.

 

[Luk]

It was nothing of the sort and promoting the propaganda won't make it so.

The D's LOST seats in the Senate, Governors mansions, and State legislatures. Again.

There were something like 85 seats that the D's could have picked up and they only got 34/39? And that with record voter turnouts? In a year where the State races for those seats favored D's heavily?

It wasn't a wave. You can keep on telling yourself that lie, but it wasn't anything even close to a wave.

You guys keep trying to convince yourselves it wasn't a blue wave and we'll keep on picking up seats.

 

[CandiCame]

It's not the per capita cost that's the problem, though I dispute the numbers because not everyone has HC and thus the averaging of the cost is skewed since we don't know what the costs of those without HC actually are. They could be less. Or they could be a lot more.

Be that as it may, my current health care plan costs less than half that amount. In addition, I can choose to go without buying HC and pay out of my own pocket while hoping that nothing catastrophic comes along.

However, with the gov taking over the industry, I no longer have that luxury of going without or continuing on with paying my currently lower costs. Instead, I get to pay the fixed cost under the estimate with the possibility that it may in fact be double that amount even if I don't use my HC at all.

In essence I'm getting screwed so that someone else with higher medical expenses can join in with those screwing me. And there's no guarantee that I'll have to put up with the gov going balls deep just once in my pocketbook.

Even if this were true, I wouldn't get the problem with it.

"My premiums might go up because I don't understand how insurance pools work!"

"Yeah, and?"

Like... even if you were right, what's your point? People will be healthier, you just might have to pay more. Is your argument that you're putting a dollar value on human life and it's less than a car?

Because it's reading like, "I want to be an asshole! Fuck everyone who isn't me! This is my money! Mine! I'm in kindergarten and haven't learned that sharing is a thing that will be expected of me in a civilized society! I don't care if it's hurting everyone else!"

 

[CandiCame]

It's not a "risk pool" because there is no "risk". You can't lower your premiums by taking better care of yourself and/or not needing medical care.

How the hell did you interpret that I was concerned about co pays? Are you drunk or something? My concern is that I'm paying higher costs because I'm being forced to subsidize the lame and sick with no benefit to ME.

I don't get "better" HC, I only get "more expensive" HC of lower quality than I have now. WTF should I want that? WTF should ANYONE want that?

Yeah, you literally can? The fuck are you on about? Every insurance company I've ever had has had the ability to lower your premiums if you do things like stop smoking. Like... that's just a straight-up lie. If you lower your risk, you lower your premiums.

Wellcare will even reimburse you if you do shit like get your cholesterol down. They don't just lower the premiums they have a whole big thing about it. They're really proud of it.

Also, you WILL get better healthcare. Having a healthier population will make your healthcare better. It depends on exactly how you're qualifying "better" though, so I would have to know what EXACTLY you're saying before I could agree or disagree with this.

I swear this bullshit is like people saying, "I don't have a kid in that school, I don't see why I have to pay for it."

Act like a goddamn adult.

 

[HisArpy]

Even if this were true, I wouldn't get the problem with it.

"My premiums might go up because I don't understand how insurance pools work!"

"Yeah, and?"

Like... even if you were right, what's your point? People will be healthier, you just might have to pay more. Is your argument that you're putting a dollar value on human life and it's less than a car?

Because it's reading like, "I want to be an asshole! Fuck everyone who isn't me! This is my money! Mine! I'm in kindergarten and haven't learned that sharing is a thing that will be expected of me in a civilized society! I don't care if it's hurting everyone else!"

There's a difference between choosing to be part of the HC insurance business model and being forced to subsidize it for the benefit of others.

You have no support for your claim that "people will be healthier".

Sharing? You think the idea that I'm being FORCED to pay higher HC costs for someone else's benefit is "sharing"?

 

[HisArpy]

Yeah, you literally can? The fuck are you on about? Every insurance company I've ever had has had the ability to lower your premiums if you do things like stop smoking. Like... that's just a straight-up lie. If you lower your risk, you lower your premiums.

Wellcare will even reimburse you if you do shit like get your cholesterol down. They don't just lower the premiums they have a whole big thing about it. They're really proud of it.

Also, you WILL get better healthcare. Having a healthier population will make your healthcare better. It depends on exactly how you're qualifying "better" though, so I would have to know what EXACTLY you're saying before I could agree or disagree with this.

I swear this bullshit is like people saying, "I don't have a kid in that school, I don't see why I have to pay for it."

Act like a goddamn adult.

You missed it again. Try reading all the words and not just part of them.

I literally said that single payer doesn't allow me to reduce my costs even if I do everything necessary to take care of my health.

Single payer is designed for only 1 thing - to insure those who otherwise wouldn't be able to get HC. They do this at the expense of the healthy through the use of force.

Your school tax analogy is meaningless. I went to public school, paying the tax to maintain it for future generations is me paying it back for the benefit I received. As do you whether you have kids or not. That doesn't happen with single payer. All you get with single payer is ever increasing costs with no benefit because there is no increase in the general health of the population that is not fleeting. Education and knowledge are forever.

 

[CandiCame]

There's a difference between choosing to be part of the HC insurance business model and being forced to subsidize it for the benefit of others.

You have no support for your claim that "people will be healthier".

Sharing? You think the idea that I'm being FORCED to pay higher HC costs for someone else's benefit is "sharing"?

Yes, because that's what words mean, and I can't have proof if you don't make an actual claim.

Wait, do you mean my proof that a general population with more access to health care is healthier overall than one without it? Yeah, I mean... I absolutely do? There's an entire field of study dedicated to this but I guess I can start you off. Kinda feels like it doesn't need to be stated that people with access to healthcare are healthier, but I guess I can google A=A for you.

https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/Access-to-Health-Services

https://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhqdr16/overview.html

I'm super not willing to read more than 2 links that you're gonna ignore anyway to prove something that literally every other person on the globe accepts as a given and is working toward. This is a "space exists" kind of claim. Everyone else left the idea of the firmament already so people don't really know how to prove that space is a thing or that more people having access to healthcare makes the population healthier. Because like... only an idiot would not know that.

 

[CandiCame]

You missed it again. Try reading all the words and not just part of them.

I literally said that single payer doesn't allow me to reduce my costs even if I do everything necessary to take care of my health.

Single payer is designed for only 1 thing - to insure those who otherwise wouldn't be able to get HC. They do this at the expense of the healthy through the use of force.

Your school tax analogy is meaningless. I went to public school, paying the tax to maintain it for future generations is me paying it back for the benefit I received. As do you whether you have kids or not. That doesn't happen with single payer. All you get with single payer is ever increasing costs with no benefit because there is no increase in the general health of the population that is not fleeting. Education and knowledge are forever.

People literally say that my dude, it wasn't an analogy, it was me bitching about the same kind of people saying stupid shit.

And again, even if you were right about the thing you're wrong about- that would not be bad. I'm not getting any reason from you other than a Ebineziar Scroogian level of selfish dickery.

 

[Luk]

Oy vey!

 

[CandiCame]

Oy vey!

Literally asked me to prove that access to healthcare would make a population healthier.

And then I did. I took time out of my life...

I don't... I need to log off. I post too much anyway.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, because that's what words mean, and I can't have proof if you don't make an actual claim.

Wait, do you mean my proof that a general population with more access to health care is healthier overall than one without it? Yeah, I mean... I absolutely do? There's an entire field of study dedicated to this but I guess I can start you off. Kinda feels like it doesn't need to be stated that people with access to healthcare are healthier, but I guess I can google A=A for you.

https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/Access-to-Health-Services

https://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhqdr16/overview.html

I'm super not willing to read more than 2 links that you're gonna ignore anyway to prove something that literally every other person on the globe accepts as a given and is working toward. This is a "space exists" kind of claim. Everyone else left the idea of the firmament already so people don't really know how to prove that space is a thing or that more people having access to healthcare makes the population healthier. Because like... only an idiot would not know that.

I would like to point out that HYGIENE has done more to make the world's population "healthier" than any medical discovery.

We didn't need single payer for that.

Major medical advances were achieved before the advent of insurance. Thank you Madam Curie and Louis Pasteur.

Again, single payer not needed.

Sanitation, food chain cleanliness, inspections in eating establishments, disease control, rodent control, and so on are ALL contributors to the overall "health" of the population.

So, tell me again, what benefit single payer is to the overall health of the population? Oh, that's right, the sick/disabled will get "quality" HC at the expense of the rest of us. THEY will be "healthier".

I won't necessarily be any healthier, but "THEY" will be.

I'm asking why that is for my benefit. You keep on saying... what exactly?

 

[CandiCame]

I would like to point out that HYGIENE has done more to make the world's population "healthier" than any medical discovery.

We didn't need single payer for that.

Major medical advances were achieved before the advent of insurance. Thank you Madam Curie and Louis Pasteur.

Again, single payer not needed.

Sanitation, food chain cleanliness, inspections in eating establishments, disease control, rodent control, and so on are ALL contributors to the overall "health" of the population.

So, tell me again, what benefit single payer is to the overall health of the population? Oh, that's right, the sick/disabled will get "quality" HC at the expense of the rest of us. THEY will be "healthier".

I won't necessarily be any healthier, but "THEY" will be.

I'm asking why that is for my benefit. You keep on saying... what exactly?

I keep on saying that that makes you a selfish asshole. Because that's something a selfish asshole would say.

"But what's in it for MEEEEEEEEEE!?"

Your community will be healthier, you asshole. What the fuck? Maybe don't be a dick your whole life?

And the overall costs will go down over time as people start getting more preventative treatments and less emergency care, but I don't want to get into the math because honestly trying to talk to you people about math and watching you try to argue numbers just aggravates me and I'm already aggravated because of IRL shit right now.

Yhall remind me of Ronald Regan talking about how medicare was gonna be a crippling expense. Just... mean and bitchy.

 

[Luk]

I would like to point out that HYGIENE has done more to make the world's population "healthier" than any medical discovery.

We didn't need single payer for that.

Major medical advances were achieved before the advent of insurance. Thank you Madam Curie and Louis Pasteur.

Again, single payer not needed.

Sanitation, food chain cleanliness, inspections in eating establishments, disease control, rodent control, and so on are ALL contributors to the overall "health" of the population.

So, tell me again, what benefit single payer is to the overall health of the population? Oh, that's right, the sick/disabled will get "quality" HC at the expense of the rest of us. THEY will be "healthier".

I won't necessarily be any healthier, but "THEY" will be.

I'm asking why that is for my benefit. You keep on saying... what exactly?

Because a healthier nation is better for YOU. When more money is funneled into educating Americans on healthy eating habits and treating the diseases instead of the symptoms, we are better and stronger as a country. This isn't socialism or any other ism. It's fucking common sense and logic.

I'm a healthy, single, middle-aged, Caucasian male and I'm still up for paying a little more so America can be a healthier country.

 

[TalkRadio1]

Detractors using racial ‘dog whistle’ tactics in House leadership race, Clyburn says

Washington — Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina on Tuesday accused detractors of using racially-charged “dog whistles” to undermine his bid for the No. 3 slot in House Democratic leadership.

Clyburn, the current assistant Democratic leader and highest ranking black lawmaker in Congress, told McClatchy race was being injected into the competition for House majority whip.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article221603770.html

 

[TalkRadio1]

Rep. Marcia Fudge weighing a bid for House Speaker

Democrats opposed to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are reportedly urging Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) to challenge Pelosi for House Speaker.

“People are asking me to do it, and I am thinking about it,” Fudge told the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Wednesday. “I need to give it some thought and see if I have an interest. I am at the very beginning of this process. It is just in discussion at this point.”

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/11/rep_marcia_fudge_weighing_a_bi.html