2016 Primaries, Caucuses & Conventions

Does profhulk know he is a raving basketcase or does knowing you are insane make you sane?

 

Health Insurance.

Two different things. (Yes, at least before, it's been possible to get healthcare without having insurance, and obviously one can have health insurance without getting health care, in fact some of the provisions within AHCA helped to address some problems related to that.)

Though certain states are of course trying to force healthcare on certain people (mostly vaccinations), but that's a different topic, although I believe one or more Obamas have come out in support of such measures, for what that's worth.

---------------------------

Addendum regarding my post above:

Also, people less ready to accept the greater degree of change that Sanders might represent to them.

As for why they support her? You'd have to talk to them yourself. Though I will say that BLM has been more anti-Sanders than anti-HRC, which may or may not have anything to do with Soros (generally an ally of the Clintons) partially funding BLM. Personally I'd say yes, but it's no sure thing.

----------------------

Missed this earlier:

Probably not. At the very least, it seems likely he doesn't care for presenting the truth to others. He might care deeply about knowing the truth himself for all I know.

That's not nearly as safe of an assumption.

Not everyone will recognize the truth when they see it. Especially if those that have presented that truth have (at least seemingly) almost always presented lies on that very same subject.

A "Boy who cried 'Wolf'!" type of effect.

His supporters might all be mistaken, but that doesn't mean they all don't care.


Otherwise love your post, and wish more people would take it to heart. The idea to get rid of liars and thieves in office, preferably as quickly as legally possible.

 

Uh oh. It's almost like you didn't see my very apt picture a few pages ago: http://commons.wikimannia.org/images/The_march_of_tyranny.png

Your arguing is so childish. The last president which gave a damn about the USA and it's people was JFK (cared as in actually did something meaningful) and they killed him for it. Calling Obama a traitor is actually hillarious. Would you mind telling me how he ''betrayed'' America?

 

He didn't build a wall.

we NEED to build a wall!

 

A "Single-Payer Healthcare" system is still an (likely better) insurance program, albeit nationalized; so no, BP is still not right.

We've covered this territory. I do agree with your sentiments here though even if I don't quite agree with the motivations behind the people actually involved.

 

You just linked Glenn Beck.

And I think I saw Dinesh D'zousa in the intro screen (like hell I'm watching that video). I'm sorry, I can't possibly take that video serious. Both of those guys are what's wrong with people in politics. They also happen to be absolute morons.

Glenn Beck got booted off Fox News. That would be enough of an indication if you hadn't been watching his utter lunatic videos. People who take anything that the Beck says seriously are willingly poisoning their own mind. He makes O'Reilley look like a sane and reasonable guy.

 

Musta missed it.

I mean, most likely nearly everyone in the US gives a damn about the US and it's people. Some/most of them are just delusional and/or stupid and end up doing things that achieve the opposite.

I don't think GWB for example hated America. I think he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing to keep the US save and whatnot. Except he wasn't.

 

Again, Providing Health Insurance is not the same thing as providing Health Care. There are many instances of Insured persons being unable to get or afford to get (and thus get turned down) Health Care (treatment, checkups, tests, etc.) This is true of both nations with Private Health Insurance and Single-Payer Systems.

Likewise, it is not required to have Insurance to get Health Care. Emergency treatment for example is generally administered even in the absense of Insurance (or Insurance information).

Insurance is not how healthcare is provided. Healthcare is provided through individual interactions between medical personnel, patients. It's determining how that care is financed and who finances it (everyone paying for their insurance, plus whatever the principle doesn't cover put to the person receiving treatment). It does not even, at least not directly, impact the actual costs of that healthcare (there is an argument that it actually raises the specific costs of healthcare in the grand scheme of things, but that's another issue).

In context (and directly related to the title of the bill discussed), Obama claimed to want "[more] affordable health care."

However, for the most part, healthcare costs themselves have not actually lowered. Instead, costs have been shifted (good for some, bad for some), and quite possibly grown in terms of overall insurance systems, if the reports of major insurance companies profits are any indication: http://www.economist.com/news/finan...financial-firms-health-insurers-thrive-it-fit

(Profits indicates that while the number of payouts have ostensibly increased [Thanks again BurnPyro for some of that data] the overall cost of the insurance system has grown quite a bit more than those payouts.)

Of course, much of that is consolidation in the wake of, as the article noted, smaller companies having a much harder time getting into the game, even those that had received Federal loans to try and prop them up.


A single-payer system ostensibly avoids the "for profit" issue, which in turn avoids some other pitfalls, however, it still doesn't reduce the actual costs of healthcare itself. Arguably, it could put people in a better position to negotiate those prices down the line though.

And maybe, deep down, that's what Obama really wanted.

And maybe, deep down, he actually got precisely what he and his corporate backers wanted.

We can't really know for certain on that point. At least not until we unlock our mind-reading powers.



But this overly line explanation is to get to the point. Having laws to determine financing can indirectly impact healthcare costs, but it has no direct impact. If you want to lower the overall costs of the entire healthcare system, you need to actually work to reduce costs of health care, not merely shuffle them around a bit (which is what Single-Payer does, albeit I do still think that would be a better system than what we have of course).

Or at least that's my take on it.

"Now back to your regularly scheduled 2016 Primaries discussion thread, already in progress."

 

*shrug*

It's a shame we can't always agree. Well, on the other hand, that would probably make this forum a bit more boring if we did.

 

if more people have access to healthcare then more people should be healthy. how is this measured? what data is used to determine if things are 'better'?

 

let's start with people with arms mending weirdly after a break because can't aford care yes/no
then work your way up untill you can calculate the amount of sick days and analye economic dammage VS cost of stuff.

 

no I mean sok is all about the fact driven policy. I just wonder what facts he is referencing to make such sweeping claims about the state of health care in America right now.

 

Oh I don't know

That data that we have that 45k people die every year in the US because they don't have access to healthcare? That data that says that that number got obliterated?

Dunno about your colds and sniffles, but that seems like a good thing to me

 

that's what im asking for. that data. plus whatever other measures are used.

 

It's almost like we have the google machine now, old man.


Yada yada personal responsibility and find it yourself, you're not looking for me to hand it to you for free, right?