Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express


JMS

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TheDoyler23 said:

“We’re going to give the people OPTIONS!*”

 

*incredibly profitable (for insurance companies) skinny plans that don’t cover much of anything! Yea!

 

Ah just like I had before. $500 a month insurance that covers 3 doctor visits a year and six months of generic drugs. Memories, sweet memories. 

 

Except this time around since I have a pre existing condition the cost will prolly be triples.

Edited by clietas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Republicans can only run against healthcare. Hard to run on something when you have no ideas.

 

They have ideas. 

 

They're going to allow insurance companies to sell you insurance that your state has said is illegal. (Code name "across state lines".)

 

They're going to pass "malpractice reform" that says that, if your insurance company does something that's even illegal in the most insurance-friendly state in the country, and you take them to court, and prove it, then the worst the court can do is order them to do what they should have done in the first place. They cannot actually be punished in any way. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I see the topic still has the wrong focus.  Worrying about the cost of health insurance and not the cost of health care.

 

Fix the latter and it will go a long way on fixing the former. 

 

Part of single payer, as I envision, will be to fix the fact that health insurance companies and health care providers drastically overcharge for their customers.

 

But fixing the latter is a great start and something that goes directly against the conservative belief that health care should be a capitalist system where customers will get the best price based on competition.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, looks like the Republican position on Obamacare is:  

 

1)  We absolutely want to get rid of it.  It's maybe our Party's #1 priority.  

 

2)  But we don't want to go on record voting to get rid of it.  

 

3)  Although, going on record voting to **** it up, we're OK with.  

 

4)  And we absolutely positively do not want to reveal any plans at all for any kind of replacement.  (We'll claim that we have a plan.  But cannot under any circumstances allow the voters to see what it is.)  

 

5)  Therefore, what we really, really, want, is to find a judge somewhere who'll get rid of it, for us.  So we can pretend like we didn't do it.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found out one of my players father lost his battle with cancer today. While I don’t know the details and there are forms of cancer no medicine can cure, the question is still begged why a rich man’s life holds more value than a poor man’s life. More importantly, why does an all be it misguided attempt to fix this system draw more ire than an attempt to skew it even more in favor the wealthy? Done hearing how heroic rich people that defeat cancer are. Their lives are not more valuable. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Darwin.

 

 I’ll play along. Darwinism refers to physical traits. The kid is 6’0 230 and can squat 470. I would pay money to watch you say “Darwin” to his face. No guns though as I’m sure Chuck would agree if a coward survives it’s not great for the species. Now if you’re referring to social Darwinism that falls under free speech and I suppose I stand corrected. 

Edited by Berggy9598
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

 

I think you want the Mein Kampf thread this is the healthcare thread. I’ll play along though Darwinism refers to physical traits. The kid is 6’0 230 and can squat 470. I would pay money to watch you say “Darwin” to his face. No guns though as I’m sure Chuck would agree if a coward survives it’s not great for the species. Now if you’re referring to social Darwinism that falls under free speech and I suppose I stand corrected. 

There was a thread a while ago about what is fair to expect from health care.  My argument was that, on a large scale, wealthy people tend to be the stronger and/or smarter, etc.  So everyone should be entitled to a certain level of care.  But beyond that, if you want the care you have to pay for it.  So the "stronger, smarter" can afford it and then tend to live longer.

 

That is a very basic version of my point but hopefully you get what I'm saying.  I'm making dinner so I don't have time to spell it all out again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

There was a thread a while ago about what is fair to expect from health care.  My argument was that, on a large scale, wealthy people tend to be the stronger and/or smarter, etc.  So everyone should be entitled to a certain level of care.  But beyond that, if you want the care you have to pay for it.  So the "stronger, smarter" can afford it and then tend to live longer.

 

That is a very basic version of my point but hopefully you get what I'm saying.  I'm making dinner so I don't have time to spell it all out again.

Sorry you lost me when you decided my post warranted a snarky response. Rich doesn’t equate to strong mind you. Sometimes it doesn’t even equate to smart. Your “logic” is literally social Darwinism. 

Edited by Berggy9598
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Berggy9598 said:

Sorry you lost me when you decided my post warranted a snarky response. 

What was snarky?  Nothing was meant to be that way. 

 

Though I love being called out for being snarky  by the guy with the "say it to his face" standard internet tough guy phrase.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

Rich doesn’t equate to strong mind you. Sometimes it doesn’t even equate to smart. Your “logic” is literally social Darwinism. 

Almost missed your edit.

 

Rich does not always equal stronger or smarter, but on a large scale it makes sense that the more successful a person is the "better" they are.  Obviously there are exceptions (cough.......Trump......cough).

 

So let me ask you, what is fair to expect from health care?  Should each person be treated the same no matter the cost?  Lets say there are two people that get infected with Buzzitis.  It is totally curable but costs $10 million to treat.  One is a homeless person and the other is a billionaire who can pay it out of pocket.  What should happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...