Boehner plans to sue Obama?

[ONW]

Probably true. And it's not like healthcare can get fixed stepwise the way gay rights has made strides one state or court ruling at a time. I just don't see how a single payer system gets implemented from a top down approach. I mean, that's what happened with ACA - a relatively mild alteration of the old system - and people freaked. Again, I'm not advocating that everyone sit on their hands, but I don't think the Pelosi method of we-have-to-pass-it-to-see-what's-in-it legislation is a winner. Find a way to convince enough people on the merits of the system and the legislation will follow. I admit I don't know how to do that, but I believe it can be done.

+1

 

[RJKarl]

Probably true. And it's not like healthcare can get fixed stepwise the way gay rights has made strides one state or court ruling at a time. I just don't see how a single payer system gets implemented from a top down approach. I mean, that's what happened with ACA - a relatively mild alteration of the old system - and people freaked. Again, I'm not advocating that everyone sit on their hands, but I don't think the Pelosi method of we-have-to-pass-it-to-see-what's-in-it legislation is a winner. Find a way to convince enough people on the merits of the system and the legislation will follow. I admit I don't know how to do that, but I believe it can be done.

A major reason people freaked was the hundreds of millions (or more) that was spent in misinformation. Another major factor was the bunker mentality and horrific messaging by Obama.

In the past, when one side got a major victory, the other side licked its wounds for a while. Then they pitched in to make it work or help with adjustments. This time there is no loyal opposition. it's burn down the house and kill it. The main is they know will like it as it matures.

When doing any project, there will be mistakes made. When doing huge projects, there will be big mistakes made. This was no different. What was different was the vitriolic hatred.

KY is one of the reddest states in the country. It also has had one of the most successful implementations of ACA. It had some hiccups, but they got over them. Now you couldn't wrestle ACA away from the people without a second Civil War starting.

This could happen everywhere. The problems could be fixed. The reality is one side doesn't want the problems fixed and don't care if they harm to win their political point.

 

[WakeandBake]

Yes. He had the power and the votes to make it happen. He should have done what was necessary but that is not his MO. He does what it is politically expedient almost every time. And what was politically expedient was to let the traditional power players shape their own plan. He gave the ball to Nancy and Harry. And they crafted this idiocy that addresses very little of what needed to be fixed.

We already had universal healthcare. What we need is a smart way to fund it, and a way to reduce the cost of it. Obamacare doesn't do that.

He did?

 

[PhDeac]

Vermont is attempting to set up single payer and it's scheduled to be fully implemented by 2017. Success or failure there will go a long way to increasing or decreasing momentum for single payer nationally. Vermont's the bluest of the blue states, so conservatives will be dismissive, but it's also a tiny state so implementation would likely be more doable than in a medium or large state. No doubt single payer opponents will descent on Vermont like locusts, but special interests are much easier to identify and neutralize in small states. All things considered, Vermont will be a very good test state.

Massachusetts and California will get a lot of credit for moving marriage equality forward, but Iowa deserves a lot more credit than they'll receive. They were the first state away from the coasts to allow gay marriages. Conservative went nuts and recalled all the judges involved, but Iowa was hardly destroyed by having marriage equality. Iowa may be a nutty socially conservative state during the GOP caucuses, but it's a swing state in general election. Just seems that a small state that successfully implement single payer will be the way to go.

I think you're overstating the potential national ramifications of successful implementation in Vermont.

Worst case scenario, conservatives dismiss any positives with lies, exaggerations, or outliers like "my sister's cousin's nephew had to wait 6 months for a heart transplant in Vermont."

Best case scenario, conservatives use it as an example of why health care shouldn't be a federal issue and left to the states.

The most likely long-term set up is that we have 50 different health care systems. The bluest 5-8 states will have single payer set ups. The rest will rely on some form of whatever Obamacare turns into down the road and we'll be stuck in health care limbo.

 

[WakeandBake]

I am a pretty big 'skin in the game' kind of guy, and I think single payer does that to be honest. Forces people to make a choice about their healthcare. If people choose to disregard eating habits and exercise habits then there will be naturally occuring penalties if you design a single payer where you don't cover everything. I think you beef up the preventative coverage in the single payer and have some disaster coverage, but you cut back on coverage on preventable diseases. If a person smokes and gets lung cancer...I don't see any reason to cover them. It is pretty easy to determine health habits nowadays. If a person lives an intentionally obese lifestyle, I don't see any reason to pay for their triple bypass. Give people the opportunity to live free and healthy lives by subsidizing all the preventative care and advice they want. But provide incremental negative consequences for willingly choosing to live an unhealthy lifestyle.

People should be free to choose how they live. If someone wants to smoke, eat fried chicken, and never exercise...more power to them. But it shouldn't be the responsibility of anyone to subsidize that behavior. Single payer + supplemental insurance. I think you could set it up to both cover everyone, while at the same time satisfying the 'skin in the game' crowd. Especially after the debacle of Obamacare has run its course.

I don't know man, this is just such bullshit. I just can't stand your self-righteousness, it makes me want to puke. The arrogance of the right with their carrots and behavior control through incentives horseshit. I'm sorry, this is just so fucking arrogant.

Who gets to decide what is an "unhealthy lifestyle?" How do you enforce it? And when the woman needs a bypass and can't afford insurance then who ends up paying for it? (I know, but I want to hear your answer).

 

[RJKarl]

The problem with Wrangor's rant is that the central mentality of single payer is everyone chips in to cover everyone else. He would pay for the smoker. He would pay for the fat guy who has diabetes. By definition, in single payer everyone subsidizes everyone else.

 

[WakeandBake]

He fails to remember that we pay for the fat woman and the guy who smoked cigars all his life anyway, in the previous system, under ACA, and forever. We don't let people die on the street in front of the hospital.

So playing games with people insurance to incentiveize one behavior over another is a colossal waste of time and energy and money. And (indirectly) withholding care for sick people should be anathema to a God-fearing Christian, shouldn't it? Jesus H. Christ....

 

[KickballDeac]

Vermont is attempting to set up single payer and it's scheduled to be fully implemented by 2017. Success or failure there will go a long way to increasing or decreasing momentum for single payer nationally. Vermont's the bluest of the blue states, so conservatives will be dismissive, but it's also a tiny state so implementation would likely be more doable than in a medium or large state. No doubt single payer opponents will descent on Vermont like locusts, but special interests are much easier to identify and neutralize in small states. All things considered, Vermont will be a very good test state.

This makes me even more excited that I'm moving there in a month. I'll let you all know how it turns out

 

[DeacinBama]

There's a middle ground, I think. I agree that we're not going to withhold care and being overly prescriptive regarding lifestyle choices is a nightmare, but we need to find a way to get people to engage in well-vetted, scientifically sound, cost-saving preventative and screening measures. I don't know how the details would look (maybe a tax credit?), but this relative autonomy the individual has vis-a-vis healthcare choices (e.g., I'm not getting my kid vaccinated, no fucking way I'm getting a colonoscopy) has to be curbed. It's one thing to subsidize others' healthcare, but some of this is also subsidizing stupidity. And, considering how much modern healthcare can cost, it's a subsidy we can't afford, IMO.

 

[ONW]

I have to get my car inspected every year by law. Would getting a physical to stay eligible for healthcare every year be outlandish?

 

[WakeandBake]

Let Army deserters burn
Let the obese and smokers suffer untreated
pull assistance and tax the poor into working harder


fascinating

 

[RJKarl]

I have to get my car inspected every year by law. Would getting a physical to stay eligible for healthcare every year be outlandish?

Well having your gun registered or background checks on all sales is outlandish. So having a doctor probe you for the gubmint HC mandate would certainly be a plot to implant tracking devices on innocent Americans.

 

[Wrangor]

I have to get my car inspected every year by law. Would getting a physical to stay eligible for healthcare every year be outlandish?

I actually like this. If you don't want to be tested each year then buy your own supplemental insurance. No one is forcing you to receive free health insurance. If you don't want it, don't accept it.

 

[Wrangor]

Let Army deserters burn
Let the obese and smokers suffer untreated
pull assistance and tax the poor into working harder


fascinating

Another Dishonest post from bake. Limbaugh of the left. Take morsels of truth and completely misrepresent them. Fascinating.

 

[Deacon923]

he might just be trying to

 

[DeacinBama]

I actually like this. If you don't want to be tested each year then buy your own supplemental insurance. No one is forcing you to receive free health insurance. If you don't want it, don't accept it.

I don't see how this works, at least as (briefly) described

For one, if a person were permitted to opt out of the single-payer system and buy their own policy (assuming such a secondary market would exist), then that's not supplemental insurance. It's their only insurance. Now, if that person maintains their personal insurance plan, then everything works out. But what about the person that let's their policy lapse? Are we going to let them die at the steps of the ED? That's not going to happen, which means the person will re-enter the single-payer system, only they'll be doing so at a much higher "price point", exacerbated by their failure to conduct regular health maintenance (which ostensibly was the reason for opting out originally).

OTOH, if we offered a tax credit for conducting regular health maintenance, then failure to do so would be a short-term savings for the government, to be used to offset that person's presumably higher costs later down the road.

 

[ONW]

Tax credit to motivate rather than fine to punish...you are onto something here Bama.

 

[Wrangor]

I don't see how this works, at least as (briefly) described

For one, if a person were permitted to opt out of the single-payer system and buy their own policy (assuming such a secondary market would exist), then that's not supplemental insurance. It's their only insurance. Now, if that person maintains their personal insurance plan, then everything works out. But what about the person that let's their policy lapse? Are we going to let them die at the steps of the ED? That's not going to happen, which means the person will re-enter the single-payer system, only they'll be doing so at a much higher "price point", exacerbated by their failure to conduct regular health maintenance (which ostensibly was the reason for opting out originally).

OTOH, if we offered a tax credit for conducting regular health maintenance, then failure to do so would be a short-term savings for the government, to be used to offset that person's presumably higher costs later down the road.

I have no issue with letting someone die if they choose to not accept free health insurance. It sounds harsh but at some point people have to be responsible for their actions.

If everyone is offered free health insurance and all that is required is that you actually make a minimal effort at trying to be healthy (ie: take a physical each year and listen to the doctor tell you areas you need to change) then I don't have a lot of sympathy.

There are consequences for actions. If a person doesn't want healthcare for free then I see no reason to bail them out for their very poor choice.

I guess I just don't see the big drawback to placing stipulations on government programs. In every other aspect of life there are going to be rules you have to keep in order to get what you want. Want a job? Show up in time. Want an education? Go to class.

Want healthcare? Oh no we couldn't place a stipulation on that! Gotta give it away free with no strings attached! Single payer is the way to go IMO. But it should be done in a manner that encourages all participants to view their health as a part of the us healthcare organism. Individual selfishness with regards to health weakens the whole system.

Be responsible for your health and it strengthens the system while at the same time helping you. Win win.

 

[Wrangor]

he might just be trying to

.

 

[DeacinBama]

I mean, I understand the logic. I just don't think that approach makes it past the proverbial 7 o'clock news.