quote:

Why?

Because the number of BS lawsuits greatly increase the cost of medical care.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
If you elect me for president you will have cheap insurance for the masses, a plan for the uninsurable, and a safety net for the poor.

I like your plan, but i fear that if we elect you President you’ll lose your mind trying to deal with the swamp rats in the legislature to push this thing through. I don’t believe many folks realize how lucky we are to have PDJT to shove stuff through against incredible resistance and make it look easy. I hope that we are able to elect a successor to him in 2024 who can take the fight to those GDC bastiges half as well as President Trump does.

Skins2881,
You make too much sense to ever be elected.

December 16, 2018

Leftists jumping up and down about Cloward-Piven's dawn after judge's Obamacare ruling

Well, well, well ... in the wake of the Texas judge's ruling striking down Obamacare as unconstitutional, what have we here?

Hipster commentator Ezra Klein, who founded Vox.com, is not crying, he's crowing.

But nearly a decade of constant and cynical assault on what was supposed to be a compromise bill has pushed the Democratic Party left on health care policy, and persuaded Democrats everywhere that trying to compromise or placate Republicans is foolish. The legacy of the GOP’s Obamacare repeal strategy won’t be the Affordable Care Act’s destruction, but Medicare-for-all’s construction.

This is doubly true if Republicans somehow succeed in this case. Imagine a world where Judge O’Connor’s ruling is upheld. In that world, a Republican judge cuts tens of millions of people off health insurance mere weeks after Republicans lost a midterm election for merely trying to cut those people off health insurance. The aftermath of that would be a political massacre for the GOP, and a straightforward mandate for Democrats to rebuild the health system along the lines they prefer.

In other words, the charges from Republicans that the whole Obamacare setup was really a Cloward-Piven strategy to destroy the health care system of the U.S. and install a socialist single payer alternative, where the state would choose your doctor and your doctor would become a bureaucrat at its service, were true all along.

Just as James Woods tweeted back in 2017:

James Woods ✔
@RealJamesWoods
#ObamaCare was designed to fail; a classic #Cloward and #Piven strategy meant to implode and force a single-payer government health program.
8:06 PM - Jul 16, 2017

And just as Democrats had earlier forecast would happen, as here.

Nevertheless, Democrats yelled and screamed that Republicans were all in for conspiracy-mongering by making that charge, and President Obama repeatedly tried to assure that "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" as a means of insisting that his Obamacare was no socialist scheme to take over all health care. Now, the mask is off, and Democrats are openly hailing the recent ruling as their proof that the dawn of single payer is now on us. Obama's assurances were just pablum to placate the deplorables out in the heartland in order to get the detested bill through. In reality, Obamacare was very much a Trojan horse to sneak into the American edifice, wreck its health care system, break it from within, and sure enough, install a Soviet-style alternative.

And in the rubble, Cloward-Piven's strategy would ensure that socialist rule. Ezra Klein isn't even trying to hide it.

Any questions as to why Democrats cannot be trusted?

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...g.html#ixzz5ZrtSboDE

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Why?

Because the number of BS lawsuits greatly increase the cost of medical care.

That’s an urban myth. It’s very difficult to take legal action against a doctor or hospital and actually end up with a settlement.

quote:

That’s an urban myth

No, it's quite true.

quote:

It’s very difficult to take legal action against a doctor or hospital and actually end up with a settlement.

Settlements and judgements are only a small part of the costs associated with BS lawsuits.

Skins2881, I keep telling myself that yes, we could certainly have a healthcare system completely subsidized through taxes-probably similar to the national highway system (muh roads). However, no national healthcare plan can fund, predict and plan for the increased utilization due to complications of self-inflicted chronic conditions. These conditions are primarily related to inflammation and insulin resistance (autoimmune to including Alzheimer's and cancer).

Unfortunately, our society doesn't actually cooperate in sending a consistent message of healthy behavior to reduce healthcare utilization. Our present situation is the result of the last 50+ years of quasi-governmental dietary advise (based on highly biased science), food-industry science to create toxic seed oils, and the replacement of animal fats with highly processed carbohydrates.

What a person puts into their body (food related) still appears to a basic right of the sovereign individual. However, with that right should come responsibility.

A veterinarian will not medicate your pet for a problem that can be solved with diet. And neither should our national healthcare system.

Approximately 65-75 percent of Americans are diabetic or pre-diabetic. This costs our healthcare system around 1 billion annually. And over half of people hospitalized are for chronic (arguably preventable) conditions.

When Hickok45 yells "oh no, high fructose corn syrup" in his sp2022 video, he is representing a threat to national security.

Hopefully, in an age when you can spit in a tube an have your genome analyzed for certain polymorphisms that may impact future health, people will taking increased responsibility for their health and control for highly preventable "pre-existing" conditions.

Robert Lustig MD
https://youtu.be/bhh19cQukfg

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SigSentry,

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
December 16, 2018

Leftists jumping up and down about Cloward-Piven's dawn after judge's Obamacare ruling

There was never any doubt in my mind regarding his premise. Leftists are much better trained and experienced at getting what they want through incrementalism and the Right plays right into their hands every...single...time. That is precisely why we are where we are after 50+ years of the commie takeover of this country.

Medicare for all, the plan they want, however, will fail as we all know. The current Medicare system will be bankrupt in seven years unless something is done. Add another 200 million people to it and see what happens.

Our government has so fucked up healthcare in this country that I honestly don't believe that it is fixable.

The ONLY way to get it done is to completely remove government from it and return it to a business like any other profession, because that's all we are - professionals trained to do a specific job, not unlike mechanics. It's funny though, I don't see the federal government regulating the local mechanics or their shops like they do healthcare/hospitals.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
December 16, 2018

Leftists jumping up and down about Cloward-Piven's dawn after judge's Obamacare ruling

Hipster commentator Ezra Klein, who founded Vox.com, is not crying, he's crowing.

It may be a little too early to try to read the Dems on this issue. The headline on the front page of today's New York Times tried (desperately) to argue that this puts the Republicans on the defensive because they promised this or that on the campaign trail last fall, and the Dems won the House (just the House, mind you) on the basis of making promises about health care. IOW, I think the left is in shock, panicking, and grasping at straws rather than coolly analyzing the political scene objectively.

After all, there's not that much the Dems can do when Trump can smile and blame the Senate and the Senate can smile and blame Trump.

Give the lefties a little while to settle down and choose their vectors of attack. Then we'll know something about where this can or will go politically.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

That’s an urban myth

No, it's quite true.

quote:

It’s very difficult to take legal action against a doctor or hospital and actually end up with a settlement.

Settlements and judgements are only a small part of the costs associated with BS lawsuits.

While I am certainly no fan of having the government stick its nose into anything or god forbid "fix" anything, a1abdj is correct. It is NOT very difficult to take legal action against ANYONE, or anything, to include doctors or hospitals. Frivolous lawsuits happen daily. Most don't involve mega million dollar settlements, but do include a couple thousand dollars in "go away" money. Even though the suits don't make it to trial, you do read the info on the court docket, and that the suit has been settled. It is cheaper to pay the go away money than it is to fight it.

And for that, while I am not a fan, reform is needed, and the system needs to go to loser pays. I know saying will cause the house attorney's to scream how that isn't fair to the little guy, and that "it always starts with a victim", but as long as there is no skin in the game for filing a frivolous suit, it will continue.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
And for that, while I am not a fan, reform is needed, and the system needs to go to loser pays. I know saying will cause the house attorney's to scream how that isn't fair to the little guy, and that "it always starts with a victim", but as long as there is no skin in the game for filing a frivolous suit, it will continue.

I used to argue semi-jokingly that there should be three possible answers in a lawsuit: a) You’re right, you win. b) You have reasonable justification for bringing this suit, but you don’t completely win. Maybe you get something, maybe you get nothing, but no foul. c) Your case is complete and utter bullshit. You are responsible for all costs born by the defense, including time off work / lost opportunity. If this is a contingency case, your lawyer is responsible for these costs instead of you. In any case, your lawyer gets one strike. Upon receiving three strikes, the kindler gentler version is that the lawyer is immediately disbarred and banned from ever practicing law again.

Of course we could never get that through, much like Skin’s healthcare plan, but I like the idea...

As long as we continue to debate health care as a privilage or a right we will probably continue to go in money and time wasting circles. Once we accept that reasonable and affordable health care is a necessity for a functioning society we will begin to make some progress

quote:

Once we accept that reasonable and affordable health care is a necessity for a functioning society we will begin to make some progress

So are things like food, transportation, clothing, housing, etc. Should the feds mandate all of these things as well?

quote:

Originally posted by nasig:
As long as we continue to debate health care as a privilage or a right we will probably continue to go in money and time wasting circles. Once we accept that reasonable and affordable health care is a necessity for a functioning society we will begin to make some progress

This may sound like a crazy and reactionary approach, but once we accept that each individual is responsible for themself (Individual responsibility, what a concept!) and it is not the duty of the state to steal from the productive to support the unproductive or irresponsible THEN we will begin to make some progress.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

That’s an urban myth

No, it's quite true.

quote:

It’s very difficult to take legal action against a doctor or hospital and actually end up with a settlement.

Settlements and judgements are only a small part of the costs associated with BS lawsuits.

Yep malpractice insurance and doctors ordering every test under the sun for CYA purposes, which I can't blame them, are just a few.

quote:

So are things like food, transportation, clothing, housing, etc. Should the feds mandate all of these things as well?

No. That doesn't seem to be necessary. I'm thinking more along the lines of water delivery systems, sewage systems, interstate highway systems.... but I don't pretend to know the answer. Just see what is not working and think it suggest we need a different approach.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Once we accept that reasonable and affordable health care is a necessity for a functioning society we will begin to make some progress

So are things like food, transportation, clothing, housing, etc. Should the feds mandate all of these things as well?

Note the "Affordable" as being the health care that we should accept. Why does it have to be affordable to someone who lead a high risk life style? Why should I have to pay for someone like that so their healthcare can be "affordable"? Or do we just have the providers stop getting paid to make it "affordable"?

The VA has VERY affordable health care. It is the model by what you can expect single payer is going to look like. The pols have been promising to "fix" the VA for years, but the socialists tell us that the next one will be completely different.

quote:

I don't pretend to know the answer. Just see what is not working and think it suggest we need a different approach.

I'm 42 and remember health care and health insurance being just fine prior to heavy government involvement and every other do-gooder telling us all what's best for us.

I remember my father having a policy that kicked in at several tens of thousands of dollars. Catastrophic coverage if you will. When we went to the doctor, we paid the doctor. It was really quite simple.

I know three doctors that have quit the profession because of the high cost of insurance and the fact that you can be sued into poverty

jackpot medicine for lawyers is why the cost of health care is so high

two of the docs that quit were Ob/Gyn's that said it just wasn't worth it any more

quote:

Why does it have to be affordable to someone who lead a high risk life style? Why should I have to pay for someone like that so their healthcare can be "affordable"?

I agree that doesn't make sense and is not the answer. However, it reminds me of the old argument; why should I pay for schools when I don't have kids? Somewhere in the mix is a reasonable answer because we all benefit from a society that finds the answers.