Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Dec 2019, 10:12 pm

I agree that it is a serious problem. Couple that with the size of the deficit, and we will not be able to help the truly needy.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 19 Dec 2019, 9:46 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Tulsi Gabbard voted neither yea or nay on today's impeachment.

I swear this gal is the real deal. She is very clever.

I believe that she chose to follow her conscience on today's vote, but by not choosing either yea or nay she effectively grabbed more media attention that she is desperate for if she is to continue on her path.

As soon as I learned what she did I went straight to her website and donated $75 more dollars to her campaign. I can only hope I wasn't alone.

I just wish some billionaire or millionaire would support her campaign on principal.

I'm telling anyone who will listen, give this woman a chance and hear her out. She ain't half bad.

dh


It's not at all clear to me why this helps her. She voted her conscience? It makes me think there is something seriously wrong with her conscience!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Dec 2019, 10:09 am

I don't think we agree on that point, Brad...

Yeah, Gabbard's position makes no sense. If you think that Trump committed wrongdoing...then he should be impeached. Then it is not a partisan process. And if it is partisan...then he did not do so something impeachable. Put them together...and you have nonsense.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Dec 2019, 10:36 am

freeman3 wrote:I don't think we agree on that point, Brad...

Yeah, Gabbard's position makes no sense. If you think that Trump committed wrongdoing...then he should be impeached. Then it is not a partisan process. And if it is partisan...then he did not do so something impeachable. Put them together...and you have nonsense.


Really? You don't think the truly needy should be helped, or you think I do not think the truly needy should be helped?

I have said the truly needy should be helped. I think you think the same thing.

As it comes to impeachment, I would be glad to have Pence. Yes, throw me in that Briar patch!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Dec 2019, 11:50 am

I was referring to wealthy women being on Medicaid being a problem, Brad.

Yeah, it would be better for everyone if Pence became president and end this farce of a presidency. As stated a couple of years ago:

"I can't stand Pence. He's completely awful. But he is within the reasonable parameters of the American political spectrum. Trump is not."

Republicans are embarrassing themselves defending a guy who is essentially a Russian puppet. How did the most powerful country the world has ever seen...become subject to the whims of another country? The entire country should be outraged at Trump kowtowing to Russia...but all that matters nowadays is that the party you belong to wins, regardless of the damage to our democratic institutions or that our foreign policy is subject to what Trump owes Russia or hopes to get from Russia or that he is being blackmailed by Russia or all of the above. Did you see how Russian state media was saying Trump is a Russian puppet, comparing him to the ousted pro-Russian Ukrainian president? They are toying with him, reminding him they could do worse if he does not toe the line. And meanwhile Republicans keep rationalizing Trump's bending the knee to Russia, just so they can pathetically keep power and the gravy train going.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Dec 2019, 12:06 pm

OK, I agree that people other than the truly needy on Medicaid is a problem, just like you do.

Exactly why I like Pence more than Trump. Decorum.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Dec 2019, 12:59 pm

Are you having fun with me, Brad? We do not agree in whether wealthy women on Medicaid when they are pregnant is a real problem.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Dec 2019, 1:10 pm

Let's consider why they don't want income restrictions when women are pregnant. Pregnancy is enormously expensive. Wealthy women dont have to worry about it, because they have good coverage. But how about a couple making $40,000 or so and either don't have health coverage or it isnt very good. So, instead of cutting pre-natal care and trying to avoid large medical bill associated with the pregnancy..we say Medicaid is there if you need it. So the baby is well taken care of. I say that's a good thing...don't you?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Dec 2019, 2:00 pm

I really don't understand what kind of ogre you think I am? We are saying the same thing!

I don't want people who are not truly needing assistance on Medicaid getting it regardless of malady? Do you? I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong, but I hope I am not. If the person does not truly need assistance, then they shouldn't be on it!

Sounds simple to me.

To get assistance if you do not truly need assistance is fraud. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds fraudulent to me.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Jan 2020, 8:55 am

bbauska
I don't want people who are not truly needing assistance on Medicaid getting it regardless of malady? Do you? I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong, but I hope I am not. If the person does not truly need assistance, then they shouldn't be on it!


It seems to me that this is a pretty standard approach in the US. The need to qualify, and identify and screen out anyone who "shouldn't qualify", creates bureaucracies and inefficiencies and leads to a certain demeaning of those who need assistance.

It's so much easier just to make things universal....
The UK manages to accomplish universal access and treatment for a cost of $4,246 per person annually (2017). Canada $4,826. Switzerland $8009

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... u-s-spends

The US has not achieved the goal of access to the care required for every person, and yet currently spends $10,224 per person.
Clinging to the notion that health care should be a personal responsibility has lead to an inefficient and ineffective system. And one which isn’t really ideologically pure either, since private insurance companies often have control over a persons choice of treatment more so than the person or their doctor.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 06 Jan 2020, 3:26 pm

While I agree that private insurance is a hassle; I must say that the personal choice of treatment is preferred. That is the big issue, however. People want choice. I even hear you say quite often that people should have choice concerning their own bodies. I do not, however, understand why you think everyone should have only the basic treatment available to them that is not what they want.

I do not want a Government run heath care treating me. I should be allowed to make that choice, no?

Why are you wanting my health care to be controlled by someone I do not approve of when I am the one paying for it?

How can you rationalize that someone can be making their own health care decisions when they are not paying for it, in the case of abortion? Do you not see the dichotomy of your position regarding choice/no-choice?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Jan 2020, 1:25 pm

bbauska

Why are you wanting my health care to be controlled by someone I do not approve of when I am the one paying for it?


You have some strange ideas about how universal health care works.
In Canada one can go to any GP doctor one wants . You don't have to worry about whether or not its "in my network". The network is anyone in Canada...
Your GP can reference you to any specialist they want ...
If you are in an accident or sick, you can go to any hospital and not worry about coverage or treatment. Your covered, for everything.
The Provincial insurance will not deny coverage for any treatment prescribed by your doctor. And they pay doctors immediately for 99% of bills submitted. (Its why doctors don't need large administrative staffs.)
The "state" doesn't interfere. The "insurer" doesn't interfere. And that lack of interference eliminates most of the administrative costs.

As I understand it, that is much freer than what currently exists under most US health insurance plans. Even though you pay enormous premiums, on top of equivalent tax levels, the insurer will only approve some treatments, or pay for certain doctors etc. ...People are often left hanging for medical bills they expected would be covered, but surprise, the insurer is refusing...
So, who has more choice?

bbauska
How can you rationalize that someone can be making their own health care decisions when they are not paying for it, in the case of abortion?

There are no laws concerning abortion in Canada. The procedure is paid for under Provincial insurance plans.
It doesn't bother me that if women make a decision with their doctors to abort a pregnancy, that the cost is covered. (BTW abortion incidence is much lower in Canada, I think in large part because free access to health care means birth control is affordable and accessible for all young women.)

In the same way that some of my tax dollars may end up being spent on things I don't agree with... I accept that we have made a decision to ensure health care, of any kind (except cosmetic surgery) is free at the point of care. And I don't get to complain or interfere about what other people and their doctors need to do.
Sounds pretty laissez faire? And yet Canada spends on health care 50% per capita what the US does - despite all the controls placed on access by US insurers and agencies.

So what are all those controls by US health insurers accomplishing Bbauska? They limit your freedom to choose ...and what else?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 08 Jan 2020, 2:21 pm

I guess that I do not have the choice to participate or not participate in that program. If it was choice, the government would allow us to CHOOSE if we wanted to participate, no? If it is so great, why does it have to be mandated to be used.

Perhaps I do not understand the Canadian system. Maybe you are allowed to CHOOSE if you want to be part of that program. Tell me if that is an option for a Canadian citizen to refuse payment for and participation the Provincial Health program
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 09 Jan 2020, 9:06 am

bbauska wrote:Maybe you are allowed to CHOOSE if you want to be part of that program. Tell me if that is an option for a Canadian citizen to refuse payment for and participation the Provincial Health program


I wish I had the option to choose not to pay for endless Middle East wars. Is there a candidate who will allow me to pick and choose what I pay for?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Jan 2020, 9:31 am

I wish you could too, GeoJanes.