jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (128 posts)

Let's Dismantle Universal Healthcare in the United States

  1. gmwilliams profile image83
    gmwilliamsposted 3 months ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13221902.jpg
    Obama "care" for the most part has been a disaster.   Premiums keep rising & for many, it has become exorbitantly expensive.   According to the latest news, steps to repeal Obama"care" has been defeated.  Trumpcare as it was proposed would have reduced the cost of healthcare for many.   However, let's be logical, the government has no business being in healthcare.   The idea of institutionalized, universal health care is ridiculous.  Let us return healthcare to individuals.   Let individuals pay for THEIR OWN healthcare & totally dismantle Obama"care", never to replace it.  Your thoughts.  Should healthcare be returned to the individual?  The American government has gotten TOO BIG.  Healthcare is a personal, not a government concern.

    1. lions44 profile image95
      lions44posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Could you provide more details on your plan to "return healthcare to individuals?"  How would it be done?  The pain would now be enormous. Obamacare could have been fixed very easily but the GOP just refused to do it because of their hate of Obama.   

      The exchanges already have 10 million + people on them.   Since the expansion of Medicaid, more than fifteen million Americans have joined its rolls. If Republicans in many other states hadn't refused to go along with the expansion, this number would be higher.

      The real issue are the families and individuals who don't qualify for subsidies.  The Federal Govt would have to raise the poverty threshold.  A family of 4 making between $90K-$110 per year could pay a lot, up to $1700/mo.  That's a lot. The Feds would have to offer higher subsidies to the insurance companies.  This would make more companies get into the market.

      1. RJ Schwartz profile image91
        RJ Schwartzposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        I'm calling BS on the notion that "Obamacare could be easily fixed if the Republicans just......"  It's been broken since day 1 and its not a single Republican's fault.  It was designed by insurance companies and politicians.  The notion that subsidies are required to make it work, show it was flawed from the start.

        1. lions44 profile image95
          lions44posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Calling "BS" is fine. But provide details. Let's see your plan.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Does his failure to have a comprehensive, workable plan mean that ObamaCare is workable?  That the country can afford it, that the poor are covered for health care (as opposed to insurance)?  Does it mean that young people just starting their first job can afford to pay for seniors with much higher costs?  Because RJ doesn't have a plan means all those things?

          2. RJ Schwartz profile image91
            RJ Schwartzposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Calling BS in no way means I have a plan - I never supported a take over of a system that was working OK in the beginning.  And even after 7 years there are still millions with no coverage / another fail

            1. lions44 profile image95
              lions44posted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Fair enough.  Sounds like Wilderness wants to be your agent.  smile

        2. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I was at a meeting the other night with a self-employed contractor who said his insurance had rocketed up to $25,000 a year for his wife and himself. How in the world can an older person on limited income afford such a plan without subsidies?

          The biggest complaints about ACA come from people who don't know anything about the individual insurance market and the enormous prices that insurance companies charge individuals, even small business owners like myself and others.

      2. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        The CBO now says that simply repealing Obamacare would nearly double premiums.

        I for one would cancel my health insurance because I couldn't afford to pay $25,000 to $30,000 a year for health insurance once the repeal (or more likely sabotage) kills the age discrimination limit. I'll take my chances, hide my assets and go bankrupt if necessary.

        http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/news/ec … l?adkey=bn

    2. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Of course it had to get involved. Medical bankruptcies were skyrocketing and driving up premiums and hospital costs.  The old system was unsustainable.

      Complain about Obamacare as much as you want. At least he did something about the problem, unlike the Republicans, who can't even pass their own bill or do a thing to fix the system on their own.

      The incompetent fools can't even come up with enough votes simply to repeal it.

      1. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        "The incompetent fools can't even come up with enough votes simply to repeal it."

        Perhaps it's because while only a small handful (7% as of the last I heard) of Republicans will vote their minds rather than the party line, not a single Democrat will do so?  It's really, really difficult to believe that out of 48 people 100% of them think ObamaCare is not only good for the country but is sustainable.

        1. Will Apse profile image89
          Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Perhaps there are no Democrats who want to be responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths every year. Because if you go back to the same arrangement that existed before Obamacare, that is what will happen.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Nice prediction!  Not true, of course, or we would have had "tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths" every year in the past as well.  But nice prediction, and perhaps you're right - Democrats are stupid enough, or uneducated enough, to believe the drivel.  Personally, I don't believe that, but  it might be true.

          2. gmwilliams profile image83
            gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            C'mon now, Mr. Apse-the American medical & health care system were fine before Obummler decided to communize health care into the disaster known as Obama"care".   The government should STAY OUT of healthcare.  Leave healthcare to the individual himself/herself.  America is on its way to becoming a nanny state.   The government should take care of important issues, not healthcare.  The government is becoming too intrusive into the personal lives of others.  Let people make THEIR OWN decision as far as healthcare goes.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Sorry, but the US is already a nanny state.  The nanny isn't very strong yet, not nearly as robust as those found in Europe, but she's growing fast and gaining strength every day.  Americans are being reduced to children, unable to make decisions without the nanny and unable/unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives.

        2. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, it's all the fault of the Democrats that the Republicans control the House, Senate and White House and can't pass any legislation.

    3. ptosis profile image79
      ptosisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      But it is not Universal Health Care or "Medicaid for Everybody".
      Is healthcare a personal and not a government concern? All I know is when that homeless guy with active TB didn't do his medication that he was sequestered and forced to take Rx.  Or that Ebola scare in NYC.  There is the CDC, so, there is a understanding that government does take the public health as one of it's mandates to protect the country. Now we have Zitka, where cities are spraying for mosquitoes.  - You want to end that also?

      Public health is one of the greatest things in which a government can invest. Early prevention, which is relatively inexpensive, can prevent dire and expensive health care problems later in life.

      Is The Government Responsible For Health Care?

      Countries with universal health care include Austria, Belarus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

      What is the roles of government in improving health care quality and safety?

      Government's responsibility to protect and advance the interests of society includes the delivery of high-quality health care. Because the market alone cannot ensure all Americans access to quality health care, the government must preserve the interests of its citizens by supplementing the market where there are gaps and regulating the market where there is inefficiency or unfairness.


      https://www.nesri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Big-Insurance-Jonik.gif
      [img]http://www.nesri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Health-Plane-Jonik.gif[img]
      http://seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-food/images/single-payer-system-health-care.jpg

      https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkG3vzk9oTgS16IF4tdLXK4EBrVGb81YCLqivgfCWofbxc5SdN

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqohQo9WAAAKAw8.jpg
      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xP3w1o0ScHA/UO3ZWfYtygI/AAAAAAAAHpY/aYy41qcUhd0/s1600/CorporateWelfare.jpg

      1. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        You don't seem to quite understand the difference between the "public" and an "individual".

        Yes, we spray for mosquitos...to protect the public.  Everyone.
        Yes, we sequester sick individuals on occasion...to protect the public, not that individual.
        Yes, we have a CDC. which is in place the protect the public...not specific individuals.
        We even mandate sewer control...to protect the public, not specific individuals.

        But it is up to the specific individual to take of his or her own needs.  I am not 300 million people, for the government to protect - I am just one person and expected to care for myself.  At least that's the basic conservative premise - the liberal philosophy is that the nanny state IS responsible for each and every individual, in every particular of their lives.  Including providing health care for each and every individual just as their parents did when they were too young to do so themselves.  Their "parent" has become the government, that's all.

  2. abwilliams profile image84
    abwilliamsposted 3 months ago

    Hear Hear and Amen!

  3. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 3 months ago

    There was a debate early in the 2011 primaries when a Republican was asked what happens if a man goes into a coma but has no healthcare.

    Here is a snippet:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0

    The problem for the US right is that a large part of the population have some notion of the Christian idea that life is sacred, and also, of course, the left's notion that in an era of super abundance, avoidable deaths are repugnant.

  4. Live to Learn profile image80
    Live to Learnposted 3 months ago

    I actually heard a republican point out something I've been saying for some time. Health care costs are ridiculous. He pointed out that back in the fifties and sixties over 40% of health care was paid out of pocket. An average office visit today, for an average 8 minute appointment, is $200; not counting lab work, etc..  He claimed if health care costs were reasonably set we wouldn't be having most of this hooplah we are experiencing. The problem remains that we, as citizens, cannot control those costs. The government cannot, or will not, control those costs.

    But, they also pointed out that if we continue with Obamacare, no changes to Medicare, etc. that the effect will be within the next decade costs will equal the entire funds collected through taxation, at the current rate.  If that is true, we have to find a solution. We cannot sit on our hands. The problem here is that the government is floundering for solutions which do not address the core problem.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      +1, particularly that last sentence.  The problem isn't where to get the money to pay for health care, it is no make it affordable.  And no one seems to want to look into just why costs are so high.

      1. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        You are right about that Wilderness. I would also add that another core problem is that people are asking "insurance" to do something it was never intended to, nor can it, do.

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          That's a good point.  It's also part of why the cost is so high, whether for "insurance" or for actual care.

        2. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          We are asking the health insurance companies to quit gouging us. That's not asking too much.

          1. GA Anderson profile image82
            GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Promisem, a quick look around seems to indicate insurer's profits are coming from areas other than their Obamacare individual plans.  Several sources say the Obamacare plans are money losers - even though the companies are making gang-buster profits in other areas of their business.

            So, what you are asking is that companies operate a money-losing segment of their business, and support that money-losing segment, with profits from their other business areas - out of the goodness of their hearts.

            What other companies do you know that do that? Would you operate your own company that way? As an investor, would you be happy with a company managing your money that way?

            GA

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              I don't think the profits are what's at the core of what many healthcare insurance companies show in profits. Many only account for 6% to 8% as their profit margin. Now what they pay their upper management is another thing.

              What is funny is that for all the scientific advances and accomplishments this country has come up with there seems that the disconnect with this topic evades any logic.

            2. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              I'm not asking them to support a money-losing segment. I'm asking them to quit gouging us.

              Otherwise, how do you propose to fix our absurd health care costs?

              1. GA Anderson profile image82
                GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Hi promisem,

                First, you would have to support your accusation that the healthcare insurers are "gouging" us. And yes, that is exactly what you are expecting for-profit healthcare insurers to do.

                You would also have to define who the "us" are. I say that because in these healthcare conversations the "us" has typically meant the citizens participating in the ACA individual plans. If the stories that the individual, Obamacare exchange plans are a money losing segment are true, then where are we being gouged?

                You question concerning the "fix" is an easier one. I don't think we can fix our healthcare provision problems through private healthcare insurer's products. In the pre-Obamacare period, there may have been things government could have done to make healthcare insurance more affordable, (eliminate interstate restrictions?), but now, the principle aspects of Obamacare-type healthcare provision; no pre-existing conditions restrictions, no caps, and comprehensive plans affordable for all, that the government/citizens are demanding just cannot be provided by a for-profit business model - without the government, (us), subsidizing those insurer's profits. However, that idea was a part of Obamacare that has also failed.

                I think there are only two choices. One, go back to the way healthcare insurance was before Obamacare; individual responsibility to get your own coverage, return Medicaid parameters control to the states - with no carrot of enhanced Federal funding, (which means, of course, that all those millions that received Obamacare/expanded medicaid coverage would lose it), and then address the issues, (like interstate competition restrictions, etc.), that might bring down individual plan costs.

                Or, two, go to a single-payer national Medicare-type healthcare plan. I don't see a middle ground, a hybrid for-profit company provided solution.

                Consider this promisem, without silly metaphors; like asking a Zebra to change its stripes, or a socket wrench to do the job of a crescent wrench, do you think it is reasonable to expect a for-profit business to operate as a non-profit business? Can you see now that the Obamacare premise was asking them to do just that?

                I am not making a statement about the ethics or morality of the healthcare insurance industry, I am just pointing out that we, (well, not me), as citizen critics, are making unreasonable demands of them.

                GA

      2. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Of course we know. The health insurance industry had a 46% increase in profit last year because they bought off Congress, consolidated into a handful of major companies and now practice price collusion as an oligopoly.

        1. GA Anderson profile image82
          GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          promisem, When I looked around at this healthcare insurer's big-profit story I found it to be true, they are making big bucks. But, you should take a look too, and see where those big profits are coming from. I don't think you will find the source of their profits to be the things you attributed them to.

          GA

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, I have read those claims many times. Yet they strongly oppose the GOP efforts to kill ACA. That doesn't quite add up, does it?

        2. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          You understand that price collusion is illegal.  Why aren't those CEO's in jail?  Is it because what they're doing is NOT illegal and therefore not "collusion" (popular word isn't it?)?

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Of course I do. Since when does any executive go to jail? They are a protected class.

  5. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 3 months ago

    Anything but deny the obvious truth. Private enterprise, for all its virtues is a bad choice to deliver health care.

    Allow doctors to decide who needs treatment, fund it through taxation, and save your country billions. Think how cutting health costs in half would boost industry and investment. And fifty percent of present costs should get you the best health service in the world.

    That would require rational thought of a non-ideological kind, but on the plus side you would no longer need to tie yourself in moral or political knots over the issue.

    1. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      What type of healthcare would you suggest, Mr. Apse?

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        I suggest affordable health care that isn't under the control of price gouging oligopolies from the health insurance and phara companies.

  6. crankalicious profile image87
    crankaliciousposted 3 months ago

    So get rid of Medicaid and Medicare, right? If you want government out of health care, let's make sure it's all privatized. Correct? That's your opinion?

  7. crankalicious profile image87
    crankaliciousposted 3 months ago

    Looks like my comment was deleted. I ask again: if we're dismantling government run health care, doesn't that mean eliminating Medicaid and Medicare?

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Yes. But that's OK, because rich people will see a lovely increase in the amount of money they can pocket.

  8. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    The problem with health care is the insurance companies.  They are a for profit institution.  They sit right between the care giver and the patient. It would be nice if we could all pay for our own health care, but what happens when there is a need for more money to pay for very large expenses like a hip replacement or open heart surgery?

    All types of insurances are based on a risk reward ratio.  The higher the risk, the more they are going to charge for premiums.  It doesn't matter if it is car insurance or health insurance.  They hope you never need to use your car insurance or your health insurance.  Their ideal situation is to just collect the money from your premiums.  However from the patients stand point they need insurance for catastrophic situations that they cannot to afford to pay for on their own.

    So how do they mitigate the risk and still provide insurance for all?  A good example is group insurance in a large company. In this situation everybody is in one pool, the young very healthy and the not so healthy older employees.  Everybody pays premiums that are partly subsidized by the company.  However the young who do not need the insurance pays for the older employees that need the money for higher risk catastrophic failures.  The insurance companies pay for those needs and because of their risk/reward calculations still make a nice profit.

    The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) is a type of group insurance where the young are funding the older people for catastrophic health situations.  The individual mandate is way of getting the younger people to participate in the pool.  The government acts like a large company that subsidizes the pool so that everybody can be insured.  The single payer plan would have allowed that, but Obama had to compromise with the GOP in order to get it passed. .

    The reason it is so difficult to repeal and replace it is because it is not a 19 page insurance policy, but a body of laws, procedures, and policies that govern every aspect of health care, including regulating the insurance companies profits.  That is why it is over 2,000 pages and not 19 pages like the GOP plan.    However it does have its short comings and needs to be fixed.  But in my book, repeal and replacement is out of the question.  You can call it what you like, socialized medicine, nanny state, or whatever.  But if it is disaster and job killer and is imploding, why has it lasted for 7.5 years without any of those claims occurring?

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "The government acts like a large company that subsidizes the pool so that everybody can be insured."

      Not quite; Very few companies (can't think of any at all) will insure people that do not produce something of value for the company.  The government, on the other hand, subsidizes ONLY those that produce nothing.

      1. ptosis profile image79
        ptosisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        She said "acts like a company". A govt is nonprofit. Govt subsidizes your company via tax breaks so your premiums are lower. Everybody gets subsidized including you.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          This concept that not taking so much from your pocket is a "subsidy" continues to baffle me.  Especially as it continues to be more than others are forced to cough up and, in the case or corporate taxes, is generally a method of government "buying" what they want to see the company do.

          Can you expand on that concept, explaining it a little better?

  9. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    Wilderness;  When you work for a company that has group insurance, more than likely part of your premium is paid for by the company.  In other words they subsidize it.

    The government is not a profit center; therefore it gets its revenue from taxes.  The government, as far as I know, per se does not create anything that directly adds to the GDP.  They provide services and government contracts, but they are not part of the GDP.  Therefore the subsidizes that they dole out have to come from taxes from you and me and everybody who is in the pool.

    The ACA is like a company group insurance, the younger healthier people are paying premiums as well as the not so healthy older people.  The money from the younger people is used to pay for serious and costly medical services for the older people.  In order for the ACA to cover as many people as possible, there is an individual mandate to make sure everybody is in the pool.  In many cases, they younger people who cannot afford the premiums are subsidized by both the state and federal government, by the taxes and premiums we pay.

    My daughter is a case in point.  She is 45 years old, self-employed and is caught right in the middle of the individual mandate.  She is not able to afford the premiums on her own.  Therefore, the state and federal government subsidizes her premiums.  If they did not do that, she would not have health insurance. 

    The money from her premiums are then re-distributed to pay for your hip replacement and open heart surgery.  You can call it socialized medicine or the nanny state, but that is how it works.  So yes the government is acting like a company group insurance that subsidizes those who cannot afford it.  And yes the money comes out of your pocket and mine so that you and I can have hip replacements and open heart surgery.  How can you afford to pay for those serious health issues on your own?

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, employers pay for some of your insurance; it is a part of your "contract" with them to do so in return for whatever your labor is producing.

      Yes, government takes from one person to give it to another, with nothing in return to either the government or the original owner of the funds.

      And your point is?

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        "Yes, government takes from one person to give it to another, with nothing in return to either the government or the original owner of the funds."

        "nothing in return" is a deferred payment when it is needed at a time in the future.

        If it were as you state no insurance would ever work as the payout would always be greater than the returns. The only way insurance works is by reducing risk and or more recently denying claims. Reducing risk is getting those in good health who will not draw claims until they have paid well into the time frame.

        To make it work you have to draw from the biggest pool of lower risk participants that you can possibly assemble. In the case of health care it would be the young who don't start accruing doctors bills more than likely until their late thirties to early forties. Allowing people to avoid being in the pool by applying a penalty that is less than the premium that would have been due defeats the whole process.Pulling money from Medicare to make up for it was always going to fail as it just was not how Medicare was designed.

        If you want people to be responsible for their own medical costs through some type of insurance than you make them financially responsible just as with Social Security where it is a payroll tax where all are liable.

        It is very simple until you get the lobbyists and politics let loose.

  10. Amanda Severn profile image90
    Amanda Severnposted 2 months ago

    Reading these comments I am once again reminded how very fortunate I am to live in the UK. Healthcare here is free at the point of delivery. Yes, our health service creaks along, and isn't always perfect, but at least we are not at the mercy of the insurance companies.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      According to the WHO the UK is rated 18th in the world while the USA is rated 37th. I would like to creak along over there rather than here.

  11. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    Wilderness:  What is your point?  If you don't see my point and others who are trying to explain it to you, then this has become an exercise in futility.  I'm sure you understand this, but you are keeping a closed mind.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image81
      PrettyPantherposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      For some conservatives, the concept of saving money by providing health care for everyone is so against their "survival of the fittest" mentality, that the facts are overlooked or denied.

      1. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        And some liberals don't understand the difference between spending and saving. 

        That's life, isn't it?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image81
          PrettyPantherposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I suppose, but it doesn't have to be.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            No it doesn't.  Perhaps it could start with a refusal to use inflammatory, nonsense statements about other people.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image81
              PrettyPantherposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              If you're referring to this; I stand by my statement:  "For some conservatives, the concept of saving money by providing health care for everyone is so against their "survival of the fittest" mentality, that the facts are overlooked  or denied."

              Sometimes the truth hurts. You may or may not be one of these conservatives, but they do exist and the statement is factual. Some liberals also engage in the same type of intellectual acrobatics to avoid upsetting their carefully cultivated belief systems. The anti-vaxers come to mind.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                I'm sure you're right - some conservatives believe in survival of the fittest and would allow the elderly, the infirm and children to die for lack of sustenance.  You might even find 100 in the country - more if you would specify a particular race to allow to die.

                But they are a tiny, tiny minority and not worthy of mention.  Fewer even than the anti-vaxers.  So why bring them into a conversation if not to at least put a thin coat of the same paint on all conservatives?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image81
                  PrettyPantherposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't think they are a tiny minority. I suspect my definition of what constitutes a survival-of-the-fittest mentality is different from yours. Remember, Paul Ryan, an elected conservative leader, is an Ayn Rand follower.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image82
                    GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Holy cow Batman! An Ayn Rand follower! Exile the bugger!

                    PrettyPanther, you must understand that in the context of this discussion, and your comments, that "Ayn Rand" snark can only be interpreted as a negative inference.

                    I took a quick look at the foundation of her perspective, (not the groupspeak you hear in social circles), and here are the corner stones that you apparently see as negative qualities:

                    - Follow reason, not whims or faith.
                    - Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness.
                    - Earn genuine self-esteem.
                    - Pursue your own happiness as your highest moral aim.
                    - Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value.

                    I am also an advocate of those basic concepts. Would you care to point out the evil in them? Especially as they relate to an "elected" leader. 

                    Without resorting to talking points or examples of the extreme of course.

                    ps. Damn! from Hitler to Ayn Rand, you just have a bag full of profundities to draw on don't you.

                    GA

  12. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    Wilderness:  Do you have car insurance and homeowners insurance?  Or do do you save enough money to pay out of pocket when there huge catastrophic costs involved?

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I have insurance.  A purely optional decision that I spent my own money on, not someone else's. 

      What does that have to do with taking from one person in order to give it to someone else?  Are you trying to insinuate that forcing me to buy insurance (or care) for someone else is equivalent to an MY decision to join a group of similar risk people for car insurance?

  13. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    Wilderness:  When you pay your insurance premiums with your own money, where do you think that money goes?  Do you think it goes into a fund that is just for you, so that you can use it when you file a claim?  No it goes into a pool where part of it goes to the insurance company for profit and part of goes to pay for high risk high cost claims. 

    Whether you like it or not, you are in the pool with everybody else.  Do you think what you pay for premiums is enough money to pay for your hip replacement or open heart surgery, or chemotherapy treatments if you had cancer? 

    If you are in a car accident, do you think that what you pay in premiums is enough to pay for damages to your car or your injuries?  If you have severe water damage in your house, do you think your premiums are enough to pay for the restoration of your house?

    To answer your question, when you buy insurance, it does not put you in a pool of  "similar risk people."  It puts you in a pool of low risk people and high risk people.  If you never file a claim, that means the insurance company has used your money along with everyone else's to pay off someone else's claim.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, yes.  In understand how insurance works.

      No it goes into a pool where part of it goes to the insurance company for profit and part of goes to pay for high risk high cost claims.  "

      Actually, no.  If all the statistics are perfect indicators of reality (they never are) my money goes towards paying claims for those of similar risk.  High, low or medium.  If I'm low risk, I'm not paying premiums designed to cover the costs of high risk drivers.  Car insurance ins not ObamaCare, where low risk drivers are intended to cover costs of high risk drivers and using tax receipts to cover costs premiums cannot.

      In other words, premium is commensurate with risk, where ObamaCare does not make that connection.  Instead it does the opposite, intentionally forcing low risk people to pay higher costs in order to lower costs for high risk people and using taxes ("premiums" not designated as such) in addition.

      And finally, auto insurance is a choice...something ObamaCare is not and something you completely gloss over and forget to mention at all.  It is also a matter of people paying their own premiums, premiums based on risk.  ObamaCare is not - the root of it is to pay premiums from the pockets of someone else.  Share the wealth, in other words, and that is something car insurance does NOT attempt.

  14. ptosis profile image79
    ptosisposted 2 months ago

    Why healthcare costs so much?  Maybe this is part of the answer:

    The pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying efforts topped $231 million last year; indeed, the industry has spent more on lobbying than any other industry since 1998.  The industry retained 894 lobbyists to influence the 535 members of Congress.

    Medicare Part D is a voluntary insurance program for prescription drugs for people on Medicare. Why doesn't the government use its vast purchasing power to negotiate better deals?  Although the insurance plans can negotiate prices with drug makers, the government cannot. Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

    Part D pays 80 percent more for medicines than the VHA and 73 percent more than Medicaid.

    We live in a Corporatocracy, like the great European monarchies of yore: They have the power to control the rules under which they function and to direct the allocation of public resources.

    https://rationalopinionsblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/corporations-are-not.png?w=584

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "Why doesn't the government use its vast purchasing power to negotiate better deals?"

      Not sure I'm comfortable with this (notice that "not sure" does not mean agreement and does not mean disagreement).  Consider the "negotiation" over ACA plans, when we see insurance companies pulling out.  Do we really want that big of a "fist" at the negotiating table?  What happens to quality when price is too low to sustain good practices?  Just not sure of this at all - it sounds good and reasonable, free market in practice, but when the buyer is that large....

  15. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    Wilderness: O.K.  All insurance companies are based on a risk reward ratio.  They have to calculate what their reward profit is going to be based on the amount of risk they are insuring. 

    The government as far as I know is not a for profit institution.  In fact we are a debtor nation.  Just look at the national debt and the budget deficit.  The only way they can afford to provide health insurance for as many people as possible is to have everybody in the pool to provide the revenue to cover the cost of claims. 

    They can do this in two ways:  One is with the individual mandate and the other is with a single payer system.  The governments "business model" is based on income (revenue) versus outgo. For the annual budget, if there is more income than out go, that is called a budget surplus.  If there is less income than outgo, that is called a budget deficit. If there is a deficit, that debt is added to the national debt. The national debt has always been a deficit.  Therefore where is the money going to come from to pay for health insurance, but from taxes and premiums.

    I suppose you would rather choose your own insurance company and use the free market model with no regulations, where the insurance company is free to gouge you to the point where you can't afford insurance and it is all based on their selfish profit motive.

    Free market enterprise in theory is supposed to be self-correcting, but in my view it doesn't work for the little guy where the insurance company becomes the "money changer" between the care giver and the patient.  I believe you are looking at this from your individual view point, not from promoting the general welfare for the greater good of the country.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "The governments "business model" is based on income (revenue) versus outgo."

      Disagree.  The governments "business model" is to spend whatever it wants to, then raise taxes and borrow enough to cover what is spent.  The primary purpose is to maintain power for politicians and parties, not to provide what the country needs.

      "...where the insurance company is free to gouge you to the point where you can't afford insurance and it is all based on their selfish profit motive. "

      First, the free market has always been superior to a committee setting prices.  If you don't like the price, go elsewhere; if "elsewhere" charges the same either don't buy or shut up and spend what is necessary to get what you want.  But don't decide to steal from others to get what you want but don't want to pay for.  As far as being selfish; isn't it just as selfish (or more so) to demand what you refuse to pay for?  To simply take whatever it is you want from the pockets of people that have worked hard to get it?

      "I believe you are looking at this from your individual view point, not from promoting the general welfare for the greater good of the country."

      True, to a point.  But neither are YOU considering the general welfare OR the greater good of the country.  Both are submerged in an effort to provide for individuals at any cost and without regard to the long term good of the country or general welfare.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        And how low will premiums go when we allow the insurance companies to compete nation wide without restricting the free market to each state??? All we ever had to do was lift that stipulation.
        I'm sure SOME people knew the effects of that! (... as in insurance company owners?)

  16. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    Wilderness: I just thought of something.  My wife and I are both retired and have medicare with the supplement program.  The premium is automatically paid out of our social security $104.00 per month for each of us. 

    We pay zero for our prescriptions and office co-pay.  We get decent care with our service providers and are generally happy. This also includes an once a year eye exams and glasses. 

    But I bet you on the other hand are generally miserable thinking someone or some institution is going to steal your hard earned money and encroach on your territory.  I'm betting you live in the wilderness.  Hence the name Wilderness. I understand. It is typical of conservatives to protect their domain from others.  It is a matter of survival for them.  It's the I got mine, you go get yours and stay away from mine mentality.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      … bragging much? wilderness never does that. He doesn't need to.

    2. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Sorry, but I"m on the exact same plans...the plans that I've been pre-paying for  the last 40 years.  Or did you forget that tiny part?

      But it's interesting that you mention medicare, for it is far closer to an insurance program than ObamaCare ever was.  Barring the disabled, everyone has paid their own way.  The risk pool is about all the same - elderly people over 65 years of age. 

      But you're semi-right in the "wilderness" part - my home, although suburban, is as far from California, NYC or any other metropolitan are as you can get, philosophically.  People really ARE different here, but until you've lived in such an area you will understand just how different or the "why" of the difference.

  17. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    Kathryn:  I'm not bragging.  I'm showing Wilderness that we are just typical of the people who participate in a Medicare pool.  Why do think Trump supporters say "don't take away my medicare?"

    GA:  Paul Ryan is also a very big fan of Ayn Rand.  That is what he bases his whole political philosophy on, including his health care plan that has died on the vine.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "Why do think Trump supporters say "don't take away my medicare?"

      Maybe it has something to do with being already paid for?

  18. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    I want to try my hand at this with Trump

    - Follow reason, not whims or faith. - Trump only follows whims not reason.  His tweets are mainly whims.

    - Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness. - The only hard work he has done is to take advantage of others.

    - Earn genuine self-esteem. - The only way he gets self-esteem is by self-promotion and lies, that are causing his popularity to spiral down.

    - Pursue your own happiness as your highest moral aim. - I don't think there is a moral bone in his whole body. 

    - Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value. - He does not see Islam as individuals, they are all terrorist, except Saudi Arabia which gave us Bin Laden and ISIS.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness. - The only hard work he has done is to take advantage of others."

      Only blue collar, ditch digging and such, qualifies, does it?  White collar and management is never "hard work".

      "The only way he gets self-esteem is by self-promotion and lies, that are causing his popularity to spiral down."

      A little jealousy here?  Trump took 1M and turned it into 4.5B, all while living high on the hog.  Something you certainly haven't done, now have you?  Something that gives rise to massive ego (self esteem) for those that value money.

      "I don't think there is a moral bone in his whole body.  "

      Why?  Because he puts the US first?  Because you don't agree?  Because he doesn't agree with a nanny version of socialism you believe moral?

      "He does not see Islam as individuals, they are all terrorist, except Saudi Arabia which gave us Bin Laden and ISIS."

      Which is why he limited travel to only 6 nations, right?  Because all Muslims everywhere should be banned?  Shame on you for falling for media hype that doesn't exist.

  19. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    Wilderness:  HOW IS MEDICARE FINANCED?  It's not already paid for.

    Medicare is funded primarily from three sources: general revenues (41%), payroll taxes (38%), and beneficiary premiums (13%).

    Part A is financed primarily through a 2.9% tax on earnings paid by employers and employees (1.45% each) (accounting for 87% of Part A revenue).  Higher-income taxpayers (more than $200,000/individual and $250,000/couple) pay a higher payroll tax on earnings (2.35%).

    Part B is financed through general revenues (73%), beneficiary premiums (25%), and interest and other sources (2%).  Beneficiaries with annual incomes over $85,000/individual or $170,000/couple pay a higher, income-related Part B premium reflecting a larger share of total Part B spending, ranging from 35% to 80%.  The ACA froze the income thresholds through 2019, and beginning in 2020, the income thresholds will once again be indexed to inflation, based on their levels in 2019 (a provision in MACRA).  As a result, the number and share of beneficiaries paying income-related premiums will increase as the number of people on Medicare continues to grow in future years and as their incomes rise.

    Part D is financed through general revenues (74%), beneficiary premiums (15%), and state payments for dual eligibles (11%).  Similar to Part B, enrollees with higher incomes pay a larger share of the cost of Part D coverage.

    The Medicare Advantage program (Part C) is not separately financed.  Medicare Advantage plans such as HMOs and PPOs cover all Part A, Part B, and (typically) Part D benefits.  Beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans typically pay monthly premiums for additional benefits covered by their plan in addition to the Part B premium.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Odd - when instituted there WAS no "medicare". It was lumped in with Social Security, and we were paying to build up an account that would be returned when elderly.  Somewhere along the line "medicare" was isolated out, with some of the "premiums" (FICA taxes) being designated as for medicare.  Of course, the politicians spent all the money being paid in, so now it is financed from general taxes.  Paying back what was "borrowed", in other words.

  20. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    Wilderness:  I hate to do this to you.  But you should do the research before you start making comments that you think are true, but in fact are not.  This is from the Medicare official website:

    https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-m … nding.html

    Medicare Trust Funds

    Medicare is paid for through 2 trust fund accounts held by the U.S. Treasury. They are (1) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and (2) Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. These funds can only be used for Medicare.

    Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund

    How is it funded?

    Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed
    Other sources, like income taxes paid on Social Security benefits, interest earned on the trust fund investments, and Medicare Part A premiums from people who aren't eligible for premium-free Part A.

    Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund

    How is it funded?

    Funds authorized by Congress
    Premiums from people enrolled in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) and Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D)
    Other sources, like interest earned on the trust fund investments

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Not interested in the political spin, but I will comment that a "trust fund" does not need additional funding to pay out for costs incurred by those that have already put into it.  I stand by what I said: that the people funded their own insurance through years of payroll deductions and that Congress has spent it on their own projects, leaving this "trust fund" short of what it needs to fulfill promises. 

      I recognize that it is not politically expedient to tell the whole story here, but I grew up through the process and watched as it was robbed for years.  The fact that politicians now find it necessary to raise taxes to cover their borrowing habits doesn't change that.

  21. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    Wilderness:  Shame on you for not knowing that he did not ban Saudi Arabia.  They gave us Bin Laden, the 911 terrorists and the head of ISIS.  You know why he didn't ban them?  Because they buy our military equipment to fight our friends in Yemen and Syria.  You have to understand the difference between Sunni and Shia in order to understand where I'm coming from.  I don't think he understands the difference.  Google it so you can understand what is really going on in the mid-east...not the media hype that you listen to.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "Wilderness:  Shame on you for not knowing that he did not ban Saudi Arabia."

      Whatever gave you that quaint notion?  Did you merely make it up, thinking that Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Syria are equivalent in the percentage of terrorists, openly terrorist activities and training?  As well, of course, in the ability to be vetted?  That the three have an equivalent government presence?

  22. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    The government has enough to do already in defending the nation and upholding The Constitution. 
    It should not be burdened with the massive project of redistributing wealth, which it does not do very well ...
    … at all.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image81
      PrettyPantherposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Again, the government is us.  So, you're okay with, say, no more financial help for seniors with dementia?  Ayn Rand would say we are under no obligation to help at all.  Our senior citizens contributed for years to the growth and prosperity of our country.  But, we have no moral duty to help them.  Only people who "want" to help and gain fulfillment from helping should do so, right?  Of course, they have to have the financial capacity to help, so some people wouldn't be much help, even if they wanted to, because they have limited funds.  Especially since government should not provide health care to its citizens, we are all strapped providing for our own health care, so funds for the health care of others, given out of the kindness of our hearts, would be limited.

      So, what happens to those who have no one to help them?

  23. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    "… Rand's philosophy discourages altruism for the sake of altruism, and treats the helpless (babies) and the weak (mentally ill, disabled, elderly) as not worthy of moral obligations.  It is an ugly philosophy pushed by an ugly human being."

    so, your solution is to throw the moral obligation people should have, (but apparently don't have, in your eyes?) to the government.
    Yes or no?

  24. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    The government is no longer us. What are you thinking????? lol
    It too late to even be talking about this subject of redistribution of wealth!  It so late!  Just watch and see whats gonna happen.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image81
      PrettyPantherposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Is not your man in office?  Are you saying your vote didn't matter?  Or, were you hoping Democrats would win the majority in the House and Senate?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        You think Trump has any power whatsoever?
        There is a war in congress and its against him. He has to get the people behind him or its CURTAINS for him.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image81
          PrettyPantherposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Okay, but you said the government is not us.  Yet, your man is in office.  Now, it is up to him to make those spectacular deals he said he could make.  He makes the BEST deals.  He should be able to get them all in a room and get something done.  He said he could do it.

          I'm waiting.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            He has nothing but opposition and criticism. Its pathetic.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image81
      PrettyPantherposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I noticed you side stepped the question.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        I notice you have no faith in your fellow man. For every one sick and dying person there has to be more than one person in their lives who can help them.

  25. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    The government is supposed to be us, but we have dropped the ball.

  26. peoplepower73 profile image88
    peoplepower73posted 2 months ago

    Kathryn:  You are right about getting the people behind him, but he only plays to his base who already adores him.  Trump is about Trump and his family organization.  He is a born divider and conqueror.  He has done it his whole life.  The first rule of management is to support your people.  If you don't support them, they are not going to support you.  The second rule of management is have a chain of command for your organization.  Trump has no chain of command.  He has surrounded himself with advisors of all types.  Perhaps his new Chief of Staff will fix all of that.  We shall see.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      These sentences seem very random:

      "You are right about getting the people behind him,

      but he only plays to his base who already adores him.
       
      Trump is about Trump and his family organization. 

      He is a born divider and conqueror. 

      He has done it his whole life. 

      The first rule of management is to support your people.

      If you don't support them, they are not going to support you.

      The second rule of management is have a chain of command for your organization.

      Trump has no chain of command. 

      He has surrounded himself with advisors of all types.

      Perhaps his new Chief of Staff will fix all of that.  We shall see."

  27. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    He is for the whole nation having success.

  28. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    He is for the power of each individual.
    He wants to enable every person to be independant, take care of themselves, their loved ones and their neighbors, as themselves.

  29. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 2 months ago

    Fixing world hunger is not going to make anyone in the US any richer. So it will not happen. Even if US citizens had a sudden rush of goodwill to others (unlikely with the nationalist resurgence).

    Net official development assistance by country as a percentage of gross national income in 2015
    ....OECD

    Sweden – 1.40%
    Norway – 1.05%
    Luxembourg – 0.93%
    Denmark – 0.85%
    Netherlands – 0.76%
    United Kingdom – 0.71%
    Finland – 0.56%
      Switzerland – 0.52%
    Germany – 0.52%
    Belgium – 0.42%
    France – 0.37%
    Ireland – 0.36%
    Austria – 0.32%
    Canada – 0.28%
    New Zealand – 0.27%
    Australia – 0.27%
    Iceland – 0.24%
    Japan – 0.22%
    Italy – 0.21%
    United States – 0.17%

    Sorry its a long list, but I wanted to get the US in somehow.

    Trump is determined to cut aid, of course. I suppose poor folks have no interest in golf or gaudy hotels.

    1. ptosis profile image79
      ptosisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      That list could be misleading, IDK, but - was looking at the percentage of military spending for the US is lower than a lot of other states - so yes have the biggest mil but also a lower percentage of GPD because US is S-O    R-I-C-H

      1. Will Apse profile image89
        Will Apseposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Sorry, but percentages are percentages. Being rich is no excuse for being mean. To me the figures suggest a fundamental malaise -- the feeling that nothing good can come of good intentions.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          No, being rich is not an excuse for being mean.

          Neither is being poor, or feeling bad for the plight of the poor.  It is not an excuse to rob Peter to give to Paul.

          1. Will Apse profile image89
            Will Apseposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            This simply makes no sense.

            It has nothing to do with wealth creation which is always a social effort. And it has nothing to do with the power relationships that determine the rewards different members of a society receive.

            Teachers roles are no less important than the roles of investors. Investors just happen to be in a position to take more -- because the rules allow it.

            And who made the rules? Not the teachers, obvioulsy.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              That's because you don't recognize that robbing Peter to give it to Paul is being mean.

  30. ptosis profile image79
    ptosisposted 2 months ago

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/14/cb/6a/14cb6a04e324e382f71412b36e541384--donald-trump-donald-oconnor.jpg

 
working