U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2019, 12:02 PM
 
Location: The middle of nowhere
9,006 posts, read 4,115,699 times
Reputation: 7678

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Most perplexing thing about big government supporters is that they would prefer the making things up and reacting to symptoms instead of truthfully trying to address the cause of our problems.
What "solutions" have conservatives offered aside from more Jesus rammed down the throats of all Americans? Where is the alternative to Obamacare that is more affordable and covers more people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2019, 12:22 PM
 
Location: California
30,701 posts, read 33,473,253 times
Reputation: 26124
"we can't afford NOT to" says everyone before going bankrupt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,916 posts, read 14,235,190 times
Reputation: 16091
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
What "solutions" have conservatives offered aside from more Jesus rammed down the throats of all Americans? Where is the alternative to Obamacare that is more affordable and covers more people?
Republicans aren't constitutionally obligated to provide an alternative to Obamacare.

Informed Americans know that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled for more than 100 years that both insurance and medical care are intra-State commerce and that Congress has no authority over intra-State commerce.

How could it be you are so uninformed?

If you don't like this nightmare, then put the blame where it belongs, which is on your State legislatures, FDR, unions, Congress and your Supreme Court.

They created this nightmare, so why should we believe that anything they undertake will be successful?

Your employer lords over your healthcare, because FDR, unions, Congress and your Supreme Court said so.

It was FDR who stupidly enacted the Wage & Price Freeze to combat Wage Inflation instead of just a Price Freeze as common sense dictates.

Since your employer couldn't give you a pay raise without first obtaining prior written consent from the National Labor Board, and since the National Labor Board never granted consent, employer's started offering to pay for health plan coverage.

You chose the plan, not your employer. Your employer only paid all or part of the costs.

Nothing wrong with that.

The Big Mistake Part Deux comes when Congress starts subsidizing employers who pay for plans.

Then, since the MAFIA controls unions and is using union pension plans to launder money, the MAFIA sees healthcare plans as just one more vehicle to allow them to launder even more money, so they push the unions to gain control of the plans and the idiots on the Supreme Court stupidly gave it to them in 1949.

That's a fact Jack. See the 1949 In Re: Inland Steel decision.

Now, your employer lords over your healthcare plan like feudal baron.

But, the good news is, Congress can fix this just as soon as Congress grows a spine.

All Congress has to do is end the tax-payer subsidies to employers. It might help to also penalize employers who offer health plans.

Your employer never choose the best health plan for you. They always choose the best plan for them, and the best plan for them is one that maximizes their tax-payer subsidies.

If Congress did that, we'd back where we started: You choose the plan, your employer just pays for it.

Do tell...are you going to choose a plan that benefits you or one that benefits your employer?

Your State legislatures screwed up everything by granting hospitals monopoly power.

No monopoly of any kind is ever good.

Your hospital monopolies illegally collude to illegally fix prices above market rates.

If you do doubt, then read and weep: Wills v Foster 229 Ill. 2d 393 (2008)

I can post thousands and thousands of those. They're all the same.

The plaintiff owed $80,163 in medical bills but the hospital accepted $19,005 in full satisfaction.

Why do you think the hospital accepted in $19,000 as payment in full?

Because they made a $7,000+ profit.

The actual Free Market cost of medical care was probably $9,000 to $12,000.

Then, why did the hospital bill $80,000?

Um, which part of "monopoly" do you not understand?

The monopolies bill $80,000 and if you and your insurance company pay it, then you're just a bunch of suckers. Your insurance company will try to negotiate it down, but whatever you or they pay, the monopoly always gets a hefty profit.

Your State legislatures can fix that just as soon as they grow a spine and repeal the laws that grant hospitals monopoly status and the pursue anti-trust actions against the hospitals.

If you did that, you'd almost be like Switzerland. Not quite, but almost.

If you barred a group from owning more than one medical facility within a Metropolitan Statistical Area, then you'd be a lot more like Switzerland.

And then if you forced hospitals to break up into clinics and polyclinics, you'd be like Switzerland and Germany and Romania and Belgium and France and the other Euro-States.

You do want to be like them, don't you?

That's what I've been hearing for years.

Creating a universal healthcare system does not make you like them. If you want to be like them, you have to do the things they did, or you won't save even one penny, and it'll even cost more than you're paying now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 03:15 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,003 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
I think no such thing but nice try. AND; a penalty assessed toward an employer does nothing whatsoever to benefit the terminated employee who may have been dealing with a major health issue when terminated.

In discussion with American friends I have had the occasion more than once to hear the term COBRA and queried them about something named the same as a deadly snake. I was flummoxed at it's requirement gensis.

"State laws often provide interesting twists that make it easier to get continued coverage. However, for an employee to be eligible for continued coverage, most state laws require that he or she must be covered for a certain time—three months is common—just before being terminated. In nearly all instances, any continuation of coverage will be at your expense, just as it would be under COBRA.

Even if your state does not have a law that gives you the right to continue group health care coverage after employment ends, it may have a law that requires health insurance companies to offer you the option of converting your group policy to individual coverage."


Aside from the disclaimer that while you are in dispute over some wrongful dismissal or somesuch you must provide your coverage at your own expense... plus paying lawyers fees; did you notice how ,many times words like "easier", "often", "most", "nearly" and "may" are used to describe something that is not an absolute …. as compared to "covered regardless from cradle to grave"?
So you're talking about if someone gets fired/laid off/terminated from employment, not just the boss taking a personal dislike to him/her, which is what you initially said.

I don't defend the US system, I said I am in favor of a UHC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 04:24 PM
 
18,273 posts, read 10,374,392 times
Reputation: 13335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
So you're talking about if someone gets fired/laid off/terminated from employment, not just the boss taking a personal dislike to him/her, which is what you initially said.

I don't defend the US system, I said I am in favor of a UHC.
Yes I said that, and no it is not excluded from reasons for firing someone. People are fired in the U.S. every single day because the boss has taken a personal dislike to an employee. To believe otherwise would be ignoring the facts.

Just one very public example where a person was fired without just cause: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-finger-505341

Yes she is suing for wrongful dismissal but that takes time and money ....

This makes for good reading and while the article explains why it should not be so; you'll find that some businesses think firing someone is their ordained right: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtoo...dont-like.aspx

"In the United States, there is no single “wrongful termination” law. Rather there are several state and federal laws and court decisions that define this concept.

Termination of at-will employment
"Although at-will employees are protected from termination by civil rights laws and other laws that prohibit retaliatory termination, in the absence of a contract of employment or collective bargaining agreement, or civil service protections extended to government workers, they have few protections from being fired.[2]

In all U.S. states except Montana,[1] workers are considered by default to be at-will employees, meaning that they may be fired at any time without cause".


The problem arises when you are forced to challenge that dismissal and purchase your own insurance while doing so as well as paying for your lawyer performing whatever court challenge is applicable. You must understand something like that could take months or even years.

I understood your endorsing some form of UHC or Single Payer. I was responding to someone other than yourself when you chose to rebut my post on the grounds of what I think about the U.S. being (your words here, NOT mine) "a lawless chit hole" where people can be fired without cause..

Last edited by BruSan; 06-27-2019 at 04:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 04:38 PM
 
2,304 posts, read 626,166 times
Reputation: 1444
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
In an era where Medicare-for-All is now overwhelmingly popular amongst the general populace, a new study shows that the US would see significant savings from implementing such a system, in addition to improving the economy and well-being/mental health.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...us-51-trillion
Yeah because government is so good at saving money on every program they run.........LOL.....every one of them is a fiscal disaster
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 04:51 PM
 
4,872 posts, read 2,350,751 times
Reputation: 5699
People don't get it - going to universal healthcare in this country will only see us end up with a shortage of doctors as many I know would pull the pin if told they'd get a straight salary of $100,000. We have enough of a shortage now in poor areas and the Midwest. Hospitals would close - and decisions would be made on who gets treatment first and how quickly. We are not Europe - this is a whole new ballgame here and after all these years in a free market system - it won't bode well.

You need to be able to sell insurance across state lines to make it more competitive. We need to negotiate drug costs like other nations as the US ends up paying for the research of these drugs as well as any money lost because overseas countries will only pay so much for the medication.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 04:52 PM
 
29,463 posts, read 15,444,180 times
Reputation: 20013
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
In an era where Medicare-for-All is now overwhelmingly popular amongst the general populace, a new study shows that the US would see significant savings from implementing such a system, in addition to improving the economy and well-being/mental health.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...us-51-trillion
Lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 05:12 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,003 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Yes I said that, and no it is not excluded from reasons for firing someone. People are fired in the U.S. every single day because the boss has taken a personal dislike to an employee. To believe otherwise would be ignoring the facts.

Just one very public example where a person was fired without just cause: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-finger-505341

Yes she is suing for wrongful dismissal but that takes time and money ....

This makes for good reading and while the article explains why it should not be so; you'll find that some businesses think firing someone is their ordained right: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtoo...dont-like.aspx

"In the United States, there is no single “wrongful termination” law. Rather there are several state and federal laws and court decisions that define this concept.

Termination of at-will employment
"Although at-will employees are protected from termination by civil rights laws and other laws that prohibit retaliatory termination, in the absence of a contract of employment or collective bargaining agreement, or civil service protections extended to government workers, they have few protections from being fired.[2]

In all U.S. states except Montana,[1] workers are considered by default to be at-will employees, meaning that they may be fired at any time without cause".


The problem arises when you are forced to challenge that dismissal and purchase your own insurance while doing so as well as paying for your lawyer performing whatever court challenge is applicable. You must understand something like that could take months or even years.

I understood your endorsing some form of UHC or Single Payer. I was responding to someone other than yourself when you chose to rebut my post on the grounds of what I think about the U.S. being (your words here, NOT mine) "a lawless chit hole" where people can be fired without cause..
Good Grief, what's with all this argumentation and goalpost moving (other than you seem to like to argue with me?). I thought you meant a situation where the boss simply didn't like a person. I wasn't thinking about firing. I also said I thought the US should go with a UHC. You do know, of course, that many UHC programs involve taxes levied on employers, and that up in your country, employers often offer insurance to cover costs the provincial system does not, no?

GIVE IT A REST!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 05:14 PM
 
188 posts, read 32,530 times
Reputation: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakformonday View Post
This is great news! A majority of Americans want this. A healthy populace is a more productive one.

I think this line makes it even more attractive <emphasis added>:

"...the cumulative savings for the first decade operating under Medicare for All would be $5.1 trillion, equal to 2.1 percent of cumulative GDP, without accounting for broader macroeconomic benefits such as increased productivity, greater income equality, and net job creation through lower operating costs for small- and medium-sized businesses..."
... and the Nazis promised that "work will set you free". No thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top