quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Everybody wants to dance, but nobody wants to pay the band.

Of course. If Republicans are offering something better, it seems that they should be explaining why CD's are just as danceable.

But, they seem to be cancelling the dance altogether for so many without a clearly expressed alternative.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Everybody wants to dance, but nobody wants to pay the band.

This.

Medical treatment is not a right. It is a product.

quote:

Most people could care less how it is done. They just want to have access to care at a reasonable cost.

The finer points are what Republicans have the responsibility to create and explain.

"Health care" is a name we give to a lifelong series of goods and services we choose to purchase to help us to maintain health and treat illness.

It seems that half the people want socialism: goods and services guaranteed and provided by government and half the people want freedom: goods and services that are competitive but not guaranteed.

There is no "practical plan" to split the baby, giving everyone what they want without imposing undue burden on others. These goods and services are not unlimited. So when unlimited demand meets limited resources, you must have either price competition or rationing. There is no "third way". That's why this mythical "practical plan" doesn't exist.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Everybody wants to dance, but nobody wants to pay the band.

Of course. If Republicans are offering something better, it seems that they should be explaining why CD's are just as danceable.

But, they seem to be cancelling the dance altogether for so many without a clearly expressed alternative.

Huh?

Excellent sophisticated medical care costs money. The God Damned Commies have convinced the electorate that health care is a right, no matter what the cost.

If the GOP were really conservative, they would argue that the government will not, should not, can not provide any relief, other then maybe to license and regulate the insurance companies to avoid them showing up on American Greed. People could buy insurance or not as they wished and or could afford, with the coverages and limits they chose.

Taking this stand would exempt them from the pressures of having to make these decisions, as none would ever hold office.

Dying on the healthcare insurance coverage hill in that way would almost certainly mean no conservatives on courts, none in office anywhere.

So, they have to walk the nearly infinitely narrow line between abandoning their principles and surrendering to the God Damned Commies, just enough to be able to win elections. How close can you get?

There is only one answer to this problem but it is a painful one that will cause some initial suffering. That is what happens when govt meddles in business. This started generations ago. It can't be fixed quickly and the further we move away from natural economic forces, the worse the correction will be.

I just find it funny how the republicans were so nimbly able to pass repeals when they knew it was going nowhere. Now? Not so much. Repeal it.

That's an interesting chart. I'm not sure exactly what is included in "specialty pharmacy", but I'm guessing it includes some experimental drugs, chemotherapeutic agents, etc. High cost claimants probably include some very old as well as very young patients.

I don't have an answer to the unlimited demand that has been created, and now expected. There are many expensive procedures available that simply didn't exist a few decades ago. Are we, as individuals or as a society, ready to make those life and death choices?

When a baby is born prematurely or with severe health issues, would a parent who failed to buy premie coverage really be willing to watch them die? Are we willing to have the police called to remove our parents from the hospital by force because they didn't buy cancer coverage and there's nothing more that can be done? How about all the orthopedic procedures that are now being done to repair "sports injuries"? Sorry, no more running for you. The store across the street has canes.

There are many other examples, and no good answers.

Chellim1,

There always seems to be this rush to label those who want to have reasonable access to healthcare as socialists. It is a false alternative in my view.

We had a candidate and members of Congress run on the repeal and replace promise. President Trump promised that it would be "big, beautiful."

President Trump said HE wanted no one to die in the streets or to go without care. The finery of "socialism" and "right" to healthcare was not part of the conversation.

When citizens say that they want the Republicans to deliver on their promises and election statements, they are not asking for anything more than what the Republicans promised.

We should deliver on our promises, not knee jerk insult voters for asking us to deliver.

Republicans promised the practical plan of lower costs and access in a big, beautiful plan - whatever that is.

Splitting the baby is a way you think of it but three branch control did not emerge because candidates promised to split the baby.

The voters were promised something and insulting them for demanding it does not seem to be a good approach.

Granted many complainers voted for Clinton but the Republicans are having trouble among themselves. We should be able to deliver or face the consequences.

Again, I'm looking at anything that gets passed as a transitional form. Pharmaceutical costs could be brought down and so many other steps could make things much better such that no one would even want Obamacare.

I just don't think insulting those wanting campaign promises kept is a way to win them over. If things start improving, the voters will not care every much about what it philosophically means or how it got there.

Tubetone,

The answer to big, beautiful access can easily be accomplished by getting the government completely OUT of the game. No central planning required.

-Rob

Next up, the McYertle/Ryno carney act reopens with a supposed push to get a healthcare bill going. They have no intention of doing anything; they swore to preserve, protect and defend the Bureaucracy and their graft machine and by G-d that's what they're gonna do. In any case, they're only 3/3rds of 100% of 3 branches of government so cut them some slack, you filthy serfs.
http://ace.mu.nu/

John McCain Not Interested in Obamacare Repeal Now and Replacement Later

“I fear we may fall under the trap of repealing and not replacing and that would be bad for America”

The Senate GOP’s latest effort to fix Obamacare failed to garner support from the conservative wing of the party.

The fractured caucus led Sen. Sasse (R-NE) to call for the complete repeal of Obamacare followed by a completely separate replacement. Sasse suggested leaving Obamacare intact as is for one year to protect its current consumers while the Senate hashes out a replacement.

President Trump mirrored Sasse’s sentiments.

If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 30, 2017

Enter Sen. McCain with the ultimate Beltway assessment, “I fear we may fall under the trap of repealing and not replacing and that would be bad for America,” he said.

Arizona local news reported:

McCain — who has not said if he supported the Senate bill or not — said he had spoken with Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey about the matter.

McCain said Ducey wanted to see at least three amendments to the bill before he would support it.

“I’m getting those amendments written up, so I’ll be ready to present them if and when the bill comes to the floor,” he said. “I believe Gov. Ducey has to play an important role because, as governor, he has the primary responsibility.”

Why does Obamacare need a replacement at all? And why are so many Republicans who argued against the government co-opting a huge chunk of the private sector now concerned about returning control back to the market?

I’m so old, I remember when Republicans pretended to be the party of limited government, not the party worried about the best way for Government to manage one-sixth of the private economy.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2...d-replacement-later/

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Everybody wants to dance, but nobody wants to pay the band.

Of course. If Republicans are offering something better, it seems that they should be explaining why CD's are just as danceable.

But, they seem to be cancelling the dance altogether for so many without a clearly expressed alternative.

. . . The God Damned Commies have convinced the electorate that health care is a right, no matter what the cost.

If the GOP were really conservative, they would argue that the government will not, should not, can not provide any relief, other then maybe to license and regulate the insurance companies to avoid them showing up on American Greed. People could buy insurance or not as they wished and or could afford, with the coverages and limits they chose.

Taking this stand would exempt them from the pressures of having to make these decisions, as none would ever hold office.

Dying on the healthcare insurance coverage hill in that way would almost certainly mean no conservatives on courts, none in office anywhere.

So, they have to walk the nearly infinitely narrow line between abandoning their principles and surrendering to the God Damned Commies, just enough to be able to win elections. How close can you get?

I hope you are not correct. I have argued in this thread for health cooperatives and other things that could affect costs.

But, I sincerely hope that the question is not the binary, either-or alternatives you provide.

I am not sure members of Congress are looking at ways to see reasonable access to health care at a reasonable cost as a result of buying into the GDC philosophy of "rights." Why can't it just be seen as a national issue of interest?

The fact is, now that we have a national Obamacare, it will take national action to extricate ourselves from its grips. Is it bad for a constituent to ask Congress or the president to help with a problem affecting his/her life when the national government intervened to create the situation?

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
Tubetone,

The answer to big, beautiful access can easily be accomplished by getting the government completely OUT of the game. No central planning required.

-Rob

Big government intervened through Obamacare to destroy existing plans into which people were grandfathered.

If Obamacare is simply repealed, don't you think the federal government has an obligation to help put those people back into some reasonable position for their care?

quote:

The fact is, now that we have a national Obamacare, it will take national action to extricate ourselves from its grips. Is it bad for a constituent to ask Congress or the president to help with a problem affecting his/her life when the national government intervened to create the situation?

It is not bad at all. It's called repeal.

quote:

There always seems to be this rush to label those who want to have reasonable access to healthcare as socialists. It is a false alternative in my view.

We ALL want "reasonable access to healthcare".
So, yes, it is a false alternative. Those who support freedom, making their own choices, without the mandates and taxes and subsidies of Obamacare also want "reasonable access to healthcare".

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
We ALL want "reasonable access to healthcare".
So, yes, it is a false alternative. Those who support freedom, making their own choices, without the mandates and taxes and subsidies of Obamacare also want "reasonable access to healthcare".

That is where I find a commonality across the board in Congress.

How does Congress do that without having people fall through the chasm left while big government removes its fat ass from the field?

It's not a simple, easy, pain-free answer... but darth gave the answer to your question:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
There is only one answer to this problem but it is a painful one that will cause some initial suffering. That is what happens when govt meddles in business. This started generations ago. It can't be fixed quickly and the further we move away from natural economic forces, the worse the correction will be.

I just find it funny how the republicans were so nimbly able to pass repeals when they knew it was going nowhere. Now? Not so much. Repeal it.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
There is only one answer to this problem but it is a painful one that will cause some initial suffering. That is what happens when govt meddles in business. This started generations ago. It can't be fixed quickly and the further we move away from natural economic forces, the worse the correction will be.

I just find it funny how the republicans were so nimbly able to pass repeals when they knew it was going nowhere. Now? Not so much. Repeal it.

Yeah, like all those mergers and acquisitions in that health care industry. The free market only works when it is "free". As in the market determines outcomes. Not unlike the oil industry, either.

How many major oil, or healthcare, companies do we now have? Watch the stock market ticker to see all those hyphenated names of oil or healthcare businesses!

Why do healtcare insurance premiums, deductibles, etc keep skyrocketing?

I recall a video some time ago in which a young kid (7 or 8?) asked a cop to see his badge. The cop showed it to him and asked why the kid had asked. The kid responded, "because I can".

All these anti-competition mergers and acquisitions are happening "because they can!". What the hell happened to the laws about preventing monopolies?

We have apparently become like Europe where cartels seem to control a lot of stuff that does not equate to free market.

quote:

Granted many complainers voted for Clinton but the Republicans are having trouble among themselves. We should be able to deliver or face the consequences.

The republicrats are having trouble among themselves because so damned many of them are actually members of the GOPe! They do not want the necessary changes because it might reduce all that lobbyist money.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
It's not a simple, easy, pain-free answer... but darth gave the answer to your question:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
There is only one answer to this problem but it is a painful one that will cause some initial suffering. That is what happens when govt meddles in business. This started generations ago. It can't be fixed quickly and the further we move away from natural economic forces, the worse the correction will be.

I just find it funny how the republicans were so nimbly able to pass repeals when they knew it was going nowhere. Now? Not so much. Repeal it.

Many Republicans in Congress are simply unwilling to glibly let so many suffer. That is why there is so much horsetrading on Medicare.

quote:

The republicrats are having trouble among themselves because so damned many of them are actually members of the GOPe! They do not want the necessary changes because it might reduce all that lobbyist money.

Yep.
Enter Sen. McCain ... with the ultimate Beltway assessment, “I fear we may fall under the trap of repealing and not replacing and that would be bad for America,” he said.

A few years ago it was easy for the GOP to vote for it because they knew it would be vetoed. It helped them get reelected and now some are scared of the bad press. That's essentially what Ted Cruz told Rush and I believe it. Plus, Collins and Murkowski want to look strong on women's issues and others are just RINOs who support big government. They could easily craft a bill, but the bottom line is they don't want to.

quote:

Many Republicans in Congress are simply unwilling to glibly let so many suffer.

Many Republicans in Congress do not understand the suffering inflicted so glibly by Obamacare and government control of our lives and choices. Every day they fail to repeal it many more are allowed to suffer.