Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Perhaps, just killing it is better. BTW, I see Smapty didn't answer my previous question. Perhaps you will…

Is health insurance a right? If so, where did they get that right?

---

Cary. Let me take a stab at your question. I preface this by saying I do not have a solution or doesf one even exists.

No, health insurance is not a right. But I ask why is there a need for health insurance?

My belief - To be a strong country you need to have healthy, educated, citizens. My socialist side would be to give children the best health care and best education that exists. This then gives us the healthiest smartest citizens in the world. The problem is to do this you need government to do government things and government sucks at doing government things.

---

Agreed.

It's ridiculous to live in the most affluent nation in the world and have the worst health care ROI and health outcomes of any developed nation, and then hide behind strict Constitutional interpretation as to why we're OK with that.

We have to ask ourselves what we want to be as a nation.

Why would that answer be "we want to have the most expensive and least effective health care in the developed world?"

---

Civ, we all do need to realize, we do have a constitution. As Oldsouljer said, it is the law, that all laws should be based upon. There should be no way getting around that. Remember, as long as you don't care about strict constitutional interpretations, then you will get people like Trump skirting the issue.

So, no I don't like when he does that; however, I've gotten used to people like you saying things like "hide behind strict constitutional interpretations" and I give up. I'll join in and do an all out assault on the issues I like. If the left would do the same, then I would complain when Trump does it. Until then, we are at war with our policies…

---

LOL. You act like this is some mythical, mystical interpretation.

"People like me" and Alexander Hamilton and George Washington and every other President and Congress over the last 240 years have been using implied constitutional powers, Cary.

That's survived Supreme Court challenge after Supreme Court challenge.

It's why we have a federal reserve, a military draft, an Air Force, laws governing Internet usage, Medicare, Medicaid, mail fraud laws, and a whole host of other services, organizations, and protections provided by the federal government that aren't expressly provided in the Constitution.

---

That's quite a mix of 10th amendment and non-10th amendment items. As for the legitimacy of any particular Supreme Court ruling, they are all potentially waiting for their Plessy versus Ferguson overturn.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.

---

Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.

National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.

And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.

Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).

---

And they probably rely on the US for all their defense..

---

No they "probably" do not. That is obviously and demonstrably false.

And regardless, again, their per-capita spending on health care is far LESS than ours. It's not like they're just spending more per-capita than us, throwing more money at the problem than we are, and getting better results that way. They have systems that are far more efficient than ours and they spend less per-person than we do.

We spend more, and get less for those dollars, than any developed nation in the world.

If someone comes to you and says "we have a system that will cover more Americans, provide more adequate coverage, and we'll spend less per-person than with the old system," what would your response be?

---

Of course everyone would want that but you're either raising taxes or cutting services/budget somewhere else to achieve it the way healthcare is setup in the US today.

The US spends grossly more on healthcare for a worse product/outcome. That needs to be fixed. Hospitals being profit centers is absolutely driving a significant portion of that problem. That model needs to change first, IMO. Unfortunately, the more government gets involved, the worse everything seems to get for citizens so I'm not sure how to do this effectively, and certainly not in today's political climate.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.

---

Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.

National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.

And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.

Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).

---

And they probably rely on the US for all their defense..

---

No they "probably" do not. That is obviously and demonstrably false.

And regardless, again, their per-capita spending on health care is far LESS than ours. It's not like they're just spending more per-capita than us, throwing more money at the problem than we are, and getting better results that way. They have systems that are far more efficient than ours and they spend less per-person than we do.

We spend more, and get less for those dollars, than any developed nation in the world.

If someone comes to you and says "we have a system that will cover more Americans, provide more adequate coverage, and we'll spend less per-person than with the old system," what would your response be?

---

Name the country's that you revere…. I'll bet every damn one of them relies on some sort of US support for their defense.

Now, regarding this so-called system…. I'm not willing to throw out something has good coverage, for me. So, the statement you're making makes in sound as if these country's have better service than we do. Same time to see a doctor, same time to get in for procedure, etc,etc…

That said, what's missing is a true market system not controlled by government. Also, let's stop some of the tort that cost doctors a tone for their insurance…

I doubt your system will not protect doctors as well…

🚨🚨BREAKING:

Voting-technology provider Smartmatic charged with conspiring to bribe foreign officials and money laundering over a decade-old effort to win business in the Philippines.

The Justice Department added the parent company of Smartmatic, SGO Corporation Ltd., as a… https://t.co/KdweM9g55h

— 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸 (@Real_RobN) October 16, 2025

Civilized said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.

---

Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.

National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.

And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.

Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).

---

And they probably rely on the US for all their defense..

---

No they "probably" do not. That is obviously and demonstrably false.

And regardless, again, their per-capita spending on health care is far LESS than ours. It's not like they're just spending more per-capita than us, throwing more money at the problem than we are, and getting better results that way. They have systems that are far more efficient than ours and they spend less per-person than we do.

We spend more, and get less for those dollars, than any developed nation in the world.

If someone comes to you and says "we have a system that will cover more Americans, provide more adequate coverage, and we'll spend less per-person than with the old system," what would your response be?

---

Of course everyone would want that but you're either raising taxes or cutting services/budget somewhere else to achieve it the way healthcare is setup in the US today.

The US spends grossly more on healthcare for a worse product/outcome. That needs to be fixed. Hospitals being profit centers is absolutely driving a significant portion of that problem. That model needs to change first, IMO. Unfortunately, the more government gets involved, the worse everything seems to get for citizens so I'm not sure how to do this effectively, and certainly not in today's political climate.

---

Fair post, and agreed. It's a real challenge with no easy, obvious, solutions. It's going to be a slog.

One of the things I feel strongest about though is we can't in good conscience repeal-and-not-replace.

It is totally unnecessary and counterproductive and speaks horribly of us as a nation to have a spike in cancelled insurance coverage for the ill, deferred and deficient care, medical bankruptcies, and an overall decline in quality of life just because we're in a hurry to score political points.

If you want to repeal Obamacare, perfectly fine, but we've got to figure out what to replace it with that's an improvement first, and "improvement" doesn't simply mean "a cheaper solution for the federal government and a much more expensive, less effective solution for tax-paying Americans."

---

Agreed, you can't just pull the rug without some alternative solution that's ideally an improvement over a currently broken option, IMO.

The brokenness of the US healthcare system is so deep it'll be nearly impossible to fix without a lot of pain somewhere. Was talking to a guy today that lived in the Netherlands for 10 years (wife is from there) and he loved their healthcare. Of course they spend a ton less on defense but I don't believe that's the majority of the US problem (we already spend way more per patient then they do). He mentioned doctors over there aren't paid extravagantly like in the US and administration is much less as well not to mention hospitals aren't for profit. His background is managing healthcare for Fortune 50 companies so I value his opinion.

I really do not believe any plan will be much better than what we currently have without overhauling for profit health care in America. No clue how to do that at this point.

Werewolf said:

---

🚨🚨BREAKING:

Voting-technology provider Smartmatic charged with conspiring to bribe foreign officials and money laundering over a decade-old effort to win business in the Philippines.

The Justice Department added the parent company of Smartmatic, SGO Corporation Ltd., as a… https://t.co/KdweM9g55h

— 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸 (@Real_RobN) October 16, 2025

---

Central City? Isn't that where this guy calls home?

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.

---

Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.

National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.

And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.

Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).

---

And they probably rely on the US for all their defense..

---

No they "probably" do not. That is obviously and demonstrably false.

And regardless, again, their per-capita spending on health care is far LESS than ours. It's not like they're just spending more per-capita than us, throwing more money at the problem than we are, and getting better results that way. They have systems that are far more efficient than ours and they spend less per-person than we do.

We spend more, and get less for those dollars, than any developed nation in the world.

If someone comes to you and says "we have a system that will cover more Americans, provide more adequate coverage, and we'll spend less per-person than with the old system," what would your response be?

---

Of course everyone would want that but you're either raising taxes or cutting services/budget somewhere else to achieve it the way healthcare is setup in the US today.

The US spends grossly more on healthcare for a worse product/outcome. That needs to be fixed. Hospitals being profit centers is absolutely driving a significant portion of that problem. That model needs to change first, IMO. Unfortunately, the more government gets involved, the worse everything seems to get for citizens so I'm not sure how to do this effectively, and certainly not in today's political climate.

---

Unfortunately, that Reagan bumper sticker spawned a generation of "free market can do no wrong, government can do no right" Libertarian derp that took over the Republican party.

It doesn't take an advanced economics background, though, to come up with many examples where the free market produces a better outcome to a problem, and many examples where the government produces a better outcome. The idea that one is superior in every case is childish nonsense, a fiction usually being pushed by guys who just want to game the system for their own profit... or di**heads like Elon Musk who's businesses only exist because of endless government handouts and want to pull up the ladder to starve competition.

You correctly point out that the layers of executives, probably overpaid doctors, and unnecessary insurance middlemen have been a big part of pushing health care costs into the stratosphere. And yeah, that's a problem that would have to be unwound over a generation or two to not cause major shocks.

But the only reason it seems intractable to you is because you're starting from that "government can do no right" premise, which forces you to ignore that many other countries have tackled this problem already. If you're only looking for a free market solution to the trainwreck that the mostly free market health care system already brought us, then yeah, it's probably intractable.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Perhaps, just killing it is better. BTW, I see Smapty didn't answer my previous question. Perhaps you will…

Is health insurance a right? If so, where did they get that right?

---

Cary. Let me take a stab at your question. I preface this by saying I do not have a solution or doesf one even exists.

No, health insurance is not a right. But I ask why is there a need for health insurance?

My belief - To be a strong country you need to have healthy, educated, citizens. My socialist side would be to give children the best health care and best education that exists. This then gives us the healthiest smartest citizens in the world. The problem is to do this you need government to do government things and government sucks at doing government things.

---

Agreed.

It's ridiculous to live in the most affluent nation in the world and have the worst health care ROI and health outcomes of any developed nation, and then hide behind strict Constitutional interpretation as to why we're OK with that.

We have to ask ourselves what we want to be as a nation.

Why would that answer be "we want to have the most expensive and least effective health care in the developed world?"

---

Civ, we all do need to realize, we do have a constitution. As Oldsouljer said, it is the law, that all laws should be based upon. There should be no way getting around that. Remember, as long as you don't care about strict constitutional interpretations, then you will get people like Trump skirting the issue.

So, no I don't like when he does that; however, I've gotten used to people like you saying things like "hide behind strict constitutional interpretations" and I give up. I'll join in and do an all out assault on the issues I like. If the left would do the same, then I would complain when Trump does it. Until then, we are at war with our policies…

---

LOL. You act like this is some mythical, mystical interpretation.

"People like me" and Alexander Hamilton and George Washington and every other President and Congress over the last 240 years have been using implied constitutional powers, Cary.

That's survived Supreme Court challenge after Supreme Court challenge.

It's why we have a federal reserve, a military draft, an Air Force, laws governing Internet usage, Medicare, Medicaid, mail fraud laws, and a whole host of other services, organizations, and protections provided by the federal government that aren't expressly provided in the Constitution.

---

Civ, at this point… what are you concerned about? I don't get it…

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Perhaps, just killing it is better. BTW, I see Smapty didn't answer my previous question. Perhaps you will…

Is health insurance a right? If so, where did they get that right?

---

Cary. Let me take a stab at your question. I preface this by saying I do not have a solution or doesf one even exists.

No, health insurance is not a right. But I ask why is there a need for health insurance?

My belief - To be a strong country you need to have healthy, educated, citizens. My socialist side would be to give children the best health care and best education that exists. This then gives us the healthiest smartest citizens in the world. The problem is to do this you need government to do government things and government sucks at doing government things.

---

Agreed.

It's ridiculous to live in the most affluent nation in the world and have the worst health care ROI and health outcomes of any developed nation, and then hide behind strict Constitutional interpretation as to why we're OK with that.

We have to ask ourselves what we want to be as a nation.

Why would that answer be "we want to have the most expensive and least effective health care in the developed world?"

---

Civ, we all do need to realize, we do have a constitution. As Oldsouljer said, it is the law, that all laws should be based upon. There should be no way getting around that. Remember, as long as you don't care about strict constitutional interpretations, then you will get people like Trump skirting the issue.

So, no I don't like when he does that; however, I've gotten used to people like you saying things like "hide behind strict constitutional interpretations" and I give up. I'll join in and do an all out assault on the issues I like. If the left would do the same, then I would complain when Trump does it. Until then, we are at war with our policies…

---

LOL. You act like this is some mythical, mystical interpretation.

"People like me" and Alexander Hamilton and George Washington and every other President and Congress over the last 240 years have been using implied constitutional powers, Cary.

That's survived Supreme Court challenge after Supreme Court challenge.

It's why we have a federal reserve, a military draft, an Air Force, laws governing Internet usage, Medicare, Medicaid, mail fraud laws, and a whole host of other services, organizations, and protections provided by the federal government that aren't expressly provided in the Constitution.

---

That's quite a mix of 10th amendment and non-10th amendment items. As for the legitimacy of any particular Supreme Court ruling, they are all potentially waiting for their Plessy versus Ferguson overturn.

---

Be that as it may, they were all implemented using implied and not express powers. Along with Social Security, interstate highways, compelled integration...the list is long but distinguished.

I don't think any of those are getting Plessied any time soon.

---

Civ, I guess I understand where you are now…. The Constitution is an outdated piece and we have been operating as such forever. So, don't stand behind it and act like it's sacred because it isn't, right?

if that's your thought, then, yes, we have as a country been absolutely horrific in abiding by the Constitution. That, my friend, is an absolute abomination!!

Yes, I would peel back all of your list and find different ways to accomplish goals.

🚨BREAKING: U.S. Attorney General Bill Essayli announces California Democrats mishandled MILLIONS of Federal Tax Dollars meant for Homeless housing.

One guy used $2.1 MILLION to pay his American Express Credit Card pic.twitter.com/t6x8PwWVLH

— The Patriot Oasis™ (@ThePatriotOasis) October 16, 2025

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.

---

Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.

National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.

And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.

Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).

---

And they probably rely on the US for all their defense..

---

No they "probably" do not. That is obviously and demonstrably false.

And regardless, again, their per-capita spending on health care is far LESS than ours. It's not like they're just spending more per-capita than us, throwing more money at the problem than we are, and getting better results that way. They have systems that are far more efficient than ours and they spend less per-person than we do.

We spend more, and get less for those dollars, than any developed nation in the world.

If someone comes to you and says "we have a system that will cover more Americans, provide more adequate coverage, and we'll spend less per-person than with the old system," what would your response be?

---

Of course everyone would want that but you're either raising taxes or cutting services/budget somewhere else to achieve it the way healthcare is setup in the US today.

The US spends grossly more on healthcare for a worse product/outcome. That needs to be fixed. Hospitals being profit centers is absolutely driving a significant portion of that problem. That model needs to change first, IMO. Unfortunately, the more government gets involved, the worse everything seems to get for citizens so I'm not sure how to do this effectively, and certainly not in today's political climate.

---

Fair post, and agreed. It's a real challenge with no easy, obvious, solutions. It's going to be a slog.

One of the things I feel strongest about though is we can't in good conscience repeal-and-not-replace.

It is totally unnecessary and counterproductive and speaks horribly of us as a nation to have a spike in cancelled insurance coverage for the ill, deferred and deficient care, medical bankruptcies, and an overall decline in quality of life just because we're in a hurry to score political points.

If you want to repeal Obamacare, perfectly fine, but we've got to figure out what to replace it with that's an improvement first, and "improvement" doesn't simply mean "a cheaper solution for the federal government and a much more expensive, less effective solution for tax-paying Americans."

---

Agreed, you can't just pull the rug without some alternative solution that's ideally an improvement over a currently broken option, IMO.

The brokenness of the US healthcare system is so deep it'll be nearly impossible to fix without a lot of pain somewhere. Was talking to a guy today that lived in the Netherlands for 10 years (wife is from there) and he loved their healthcare. Of course they spend a ton less on defense but I don't believe that's the majority of the US problem (we already spend way more per patient then they do). He mentioned doctors over there aren't paid extravagantly like in the US and administration is much less as well not to mention hospitals aren't for profit. His background is managing healthcare for Fortune 50 companies so I value his opinion.

I really do not believe any plan will be much better than what we currently have without overhauling for profit health care in America. No clue how to do that at this point.

---

Yep. My hottest take is that the current version of healthcare in this country cannot be solved. There are way too many cooks in the kitchen at this point.

It would take a total system overhaul that would include reorganizing many part of the government to "fix it". I just dont see it as a feasible outcome.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.

---

Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.

National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.

And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.

Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).

---

And they probably rely on the US for all their defense..

---

No they "probably" do not. That is obviously and demonstrably false.

And regardless, again, their per-capita spending on health care is far LESS than ours. It's not like they're just spending more per-capita than us, throwing more money at the problem than we are, and getting better results that way. They have systems that are far more efficient than ours and they spend less per-person than we do.

We spend more, and get less for those dollars, than any developed nation in the world.

If someone comes to you and says "we have a system that will cover more Americans, provide more adequate coverage, and we'll spend less per-person than with the old system," what would your response be?

---

Of course everyone would want that but you're either raising taxes or cutting services/budget somewhere else to achieve it the way healthcare is setup in the US today.

The US spends grossly more on healthcare for a worse product/outcome. That needs to be fixed. Hospitals being profit centers is absolutely driving a significant portion of that problem. That model needs to change first, IMO. Unfortunately, the more government gets involved, the worse everything seems to get for citizens so I'm not sure how to do this effectively, and certainly not in today's political climate.

---

Fair post, and agreed. It's a real challenge with no easy, obvious, solutions. It's going to be a slog.

One of the things I feel strongest about though is we can't in good conscience repeal-and-not-replace.

It is totally unnecessary and counterproductive and speaks horribly of us as a nation to have a spike in cancelled insurance coverage for the ill, deferred and deficient care, medical bankruptcies, and an overall decline in quality of life just because we're in a hurry to score political points.

If you want to repeal Obamacare, perfectly fine, but we've got to figure out what to replace it with that's an improvement first, and "improvement" doesn't simply mean "a cheaper solution for the federal government and a much more expensive, less effective solution for tax-paying Americans."

---

Agreed, you can't just pull the rug without some alternative solution that's ideally an improvement over a currently broken option, IMO.

The brokenness of the US healthcare system is so deep it'll be nearly impossible to fix without a lot of pain somewhere. Was talking to a guy today that lived in the Netherlands for 10 years (wife is from there) and he loved their healthcare. Of course they spend a ton less on defense but I don't believe that's the majority of the US problem (we already spend way more per patient then they do). He mentioned doctors over there aren't paid extravagantly like in the US and administration is much less as well not to mention hospitals aren't for profit. His background is managing healthcare for Fortune 50 companies so I value his opinion.

I really do not believe any plan will be much better than what we currently have without overhauling for profit health care in America. No clue how to do that at this point.

---

Yep. My hottest take is that the current version of healthcare in this country cannot be solved. There are way too many cooks in the kitchen at this point.

It would take a total system overhaul that would include reorganizing many part of the government to "fix it". I just dont see it as a feasible outcome.

---

Same. I think it's a decades long project if it can even be done. Most likely what you could do in the short term is leverage the government to put pressure on big pharma to lower drug prices. If it's a $2 pill in every other country it should not be a $1500 pill in the US. That's probably the quickest way to lower one aspect of the problem. Hospitals and care facilities being profit centers will be much harder to unravel, same with cost of care as they're tied together.

wolf howl said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.

---

Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.

National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.

And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.

Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).

---

And they probably rely on the US for all their defense..

---

No they "probably" do not. That is obviously and demonstrably false.

And regardless, again, their per-capita spending on health care is far LESS than ours. It's not like they're just spending more per-capita than us, throwing more money at the problem than we are, and getting better results that way. They have systems that are far more efficient than ours and they spend less per-person than we do.

We spend more, and get less for those dollars, than any developed nation in the world.

If someone comes to you and says "we have a system that will cover more Americans, provide more adequate coverage, and we'll spend less per-person than with the old system," what would your response be?

---

Of course everyone would want that but you're either raising taxes or cutting services/budget somewhere else to achieve it the way healthcare is setup in the US today.

The US spends grossly more on healthcare for a worse product/outcome. That needs to be fixed. Hospitals being profit centers is absolutely driving a significant portion of that problem. That model needs to change first, IMO. Unfortunately, the more government gets involved, the worse everything seems to get for citizens so I'm not sure how to do this effectively, and certainly not in today's political climate.

---

Fair post, and agreed. It's a real challenge with no easy, obvious, solutions. It's going to be a slog.

One of the things I feel strongest about though is we can't in good conscience repeal-and-not-replace.

It is totally unnecessary and counterproductive and speaks horribly of us as a nation to have a spike in cancelled insurance coverage for the ill, deferred and deficient care, medical bankruptcies, and an overall decline in quality of life just because we're in a hurry to score political points.

If you want to repeal Obamacare, perfectly fine, but we've got to figure out what to replace it with that's an improvement first, and "improvement" doesn't simply mean "a cheaper solution for the federal government and a much more expensive, less effective solution for tax-paying Americans."

---

Agreed, you can't just pull the rug without some alternative solution that's ideally an improvement over a currently broken option, IMO.

The brokenness of the US healthcare system is so deep it'll be nearly impossible to fix without a lot of pain somewhere. Was talking to a guy today that lived in the Netherlands for 10 years (wife is from there) and he loved their healthcare. Of course they spend a ton less on defense but I don't believe that's the majority of the US problem (we already spend way more per patient then they do). He mentioned doctors over there aren't paid extravagantly like in the US and administration is much less as well not to mention hospitals aren't for profit. His background is managing healthcare for Fortune 50 companies so I value his opinion.

I really do not believe any plan will be much better than what we currently have without overhauling for profit health care in America. No clue how to do that at this point.

---

Yep. My hottest take is that the current version of healthcare in this country cannot be solved. There are way too many cooks in the kitchen at this point.

It would take a total system overhaul that would include reorganizing many part of the government to "fix it". I just dont see it as a feasible outcome.

---

Same. I think it's a decades long project if it can even be done. Most likely what you could do in the short term is leverage the government to put pressure on big pharma to lower drug prices. If it's a $2 pill in every other country it should not be a $1500 pill in the US. That's probably the quickest way to lower one aspect of the problem. Hospitals and care facilities being profit centers will be much harder to unravel, same with cost of care as they're tied together.

---

I'll take a stab at it.

We just need to be honest that health care isn't really a functioning market. People don't shop around for the cheapest cancer treatment. Our only real cost controls are private insurance companies' payouts, and Medicare/etc payouts. More often than not, though, private insurance controls costs by shafting patients, or excluding them entirely if they can, because that's better than the insurance company getting dropped by a provider for underpayment.

Once you accept that, there's an obvious solution. Eliminate the private health insurance industry entirely (they literally add nothing to the system), and replace it with one, government run insurance company. The money you would have paid to your employer for health insurance just becomes a payroll tax. Unemployed people don't lose their insurance, they get subsidized just like now. The alphabet soup of government health becomes one simple insurance system.

So how does that fix the problem? The government now has full control of payouts. They could start by essentially paying what private insurance is paying now. Then over the course of 50 years or whatever they could slowly tighten the payment spigot, giving hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies time to adjust to lower payments from the "single payer" without major disruption.

Bottom line: We'd benefit from way more efficient administration in the short term, and over the long term would tackle the real cost drivers, while leaving the rest of the system private and letting them figure it out.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.

---

Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.

National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.

And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.

Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).

---

And they probably rely on the US for all their defense..

---

No they "probably" do not. That is obviously and demonstrably false.

And regardless, again, their per-capita spending on health care is far LESS than ours. It's not like they're just spending more per-capita than us, throwing more money at the problem than we are, and getting better results that way. They have systems that are far more efficient than ours and they spend less per-person than we do.

We spend more, and get less for those dollars, than any developed nation in the world.

If someone comes to you and says "we have a system that will cover more Americans, provide more adequate coverage, and we'll spend less per-person than with the old system," what would your response be?

---

Of course everyone would want that but you're either raising taxes or cutting services/budget somewhere else to achieve it the way healthcare is setup in the US today.

The US spends grossly more on healthcare for a worse product/outcome. That needs to be fixed. Hospitals being profit centers is absolutely driving a significant portion of that problem. That model needs to change first, IMO. Unfortunately, the more government gets involved, the worse everything seems to get for citizens so I'm not sure how to do this effectively, and certainly not in today's political climate.

---

Fair post, and agreed. It's a real challenge with no easy, obvious, solutions. It's going to be a slog.

One of the things I feel strongest about though is we can't in good conscience repeal-and-not-replace.

It is totally unnecessary and counterproductive and speaks horribly of us as a nation to have a spike in cancelled insurance coverage for the ill, deferred and deficient care, medical bankruptcies, and an overall decline in quality of life just because we're in a hurry to score political points.

If you want to repeal Obamacare, perfectly fine, but we've got to figure out what to replace it with that's an improvement first, and "improvement" doesn't simply mean "a cheaper solution for the federal government and a much more expensive, less effective solution for tax-paying Americans."

---

Agreed, you can't just pull the rug without some alternative solution that's ideally an improvement over a currently broken option, IMO.

The brokenness of the US healthcare system is so deep it'll be nearly impossible to fix without a lot of pain somewhere. Was talking to a guy today that lived in the Netherlands for 10 years (wife is from there) and he loved their healthcare. Of course they spend a ton less on defense but I don't believe that's the majority of the US problem (we already spend way more per patient then they do). He mentioned doctors over there aren't paid extravagantly like in the US and administration is much less as well not to mention hospitals aren't for profit. His background is managing healthcare for Fortune 50 companies so I value his opinion.

I really do not believe any plan will be much better than what we currently have without overhauling for profit health care in America. No clue how to do that at this point.

---

Yep. My hottest take is that the current version of healthcare in this country cannot be solved. There are way too many cooks in the kitchen at this point.

It would take a total system overhaul that would include reorganizing many part of the government to "fix it". I just dont see it as a feasible outcome.

---

Same. I think it's a decades long project if it can even be done. Most likely what you could do in the short term is leverage the government to put pressure on big pharma to lower drug prices. If it's a $2 pill in every other country it should not be a $1500 pill in the US. That's probably the quickest way to lower one aspect of the problem. Hospitals and care facilities being profit centers will be much harder to unravel, same with cost of care as they're tied together.

---

I'll take a stab at it.

We just need to be honest that health care isn't really a functioning market. People don't shop around for the cheapest cancer treatment. Our only real cost controls are private insurance companies' payouts, and Medicare/etc payouts. More often than not, though, private insurance controls costs by shafting patients, or excluding them entirely if they can, because that's better than the insurance company getting dropped by a provider for underpayment.

Once you accept that, there's an obvious solution. Eliminate the private health insurance industry entirely (they literally add nothing to the system), and replace it with one, government run insurance company. The money you would have paid to your employer for health insurance just becomes a payroll tax. Unemployed people don't lose their insurance, they get subsidized just like now. The alphabet soup of government health becomes one simple insurance system.

So how does that fix the problem? The government now has full control of payouts. They could start by essentially paying what private insurance is paying now. Then over the course of 50 years or whatever they could slowly tighten the payment spigot, giving hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies time to adjust to lower payments from the "single payer" without major disruption.

Bottom line: We'd benefit from way more efficient administration in the short term, and over the long term would tackle the real cost drivers, while leaving the rest of the system private and letting them figure it out.

---

That's exactly what we need…

Your whole premise of shopping can be solved by divorcing health Insurance from a company benefit, that's really part of your compensation. People are relaxed in the life and want others to do it for them. Your suggestion is that Government do it. My suggestion is for individuals do it. People can join a pool if they want to spread the risk. We have many insurance companies doing this now, like Medi-share https://www.medical-share.com

Now, we already have Government run health insurance providers that some can get on. I'm sure you will think this is completely efficient, right?

Smapty, you're only get traction with your ideas with like-minded people. So, at some point, will you get your idea mandates to people that don't agree with you? I certainly hope not.

BTW, one of the most desired thing, for people that have the means to do so, is paying for their primary care physician as an access.

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.

---

Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.

National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.

And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.

Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).

---

And they probably rely on the US for all their defense..

---

No they "probably" do not. That is obviously and demonstrably false.

And regardless, again, their per-capita spending on health care is far LESS than ours. It's not like they're just spending more per-capita than us, throwing more money at the problem than we are, and getting better results that way. They have systems that are far more efficient than ours and they spend less per-person than we do.

We spend more, and get less for those dollars, than any developed nation in the world.

If someone comes to you and says "we have a system that will cover more Americans, provide more adequate coverage, and we'll spend less per-person than with the old system," what would your response be?

---

Of course everyone would want that but you're either raising taxes or cutting services/budget somewhere else to achieve it the way healthcare is setup in the US today.

The US spends grossly more on healthcare for a worse product/outcome. That needs to be fixed. Hospitals being profit centers is absolutely driving a significant portion of that problem. That model needs to change first, IMO. Unfortunately, the more government gets involved, the worse everything seems to get for citizens so I'm not sure how to do this effectively, and certainly not in today's political climate.

---

Fair post, and agreed. It's a real challenge with no easy, obvious, solutions. It's going to be a slog.

One of the things I feel strongest about though is we can't in good conscience repeal-and-not-replace.

It is totally unnecessary and counterproductive and speaks horribly of us as a nation to have a spike in cancelled insurance coverage for the ill, deferred and deficient care, medical bankruptcies, and an overall decline in quality of life just because we're in a hurry to score political points.

If you want to repeal Obamacare, perfectly fine, but we've got to figure out what to replace it with that's an improvement first, and "improvement" doesn't simply mean "a cheaper solution for the federal government and a much more expensive, less effective solution for tax-paying Americans."

---

Agreed, you can't just pull the rug without some alternative solution that's ideally an improvement over a currently broken option, IMO.

The brokenness of the US healthcare system is so deep it'll be nearly impossible to fix without a lot of pain somewhere. Was talking to a guy today that lived in the Netherlands for 10 years (wife is from there) and he loved their healthcare. Of course they spend a ton less on defense but I don't believe that's the majority of the US problem (we already spend way more per patient then they do). He mentioned doctors over there aren't paid extravagantly like in the US and administration is much less as well not to mention hospitals aren't for profit. His background is managing healthcare for Fortune 50 companies so I value his opinion.

I really do not believe any plan will be much better than what we currently have without overhauling for profit health care in America. No clue how to do that at this point.

---

Yep. My hottest take is that the current version of healthcare in this country cannot be solved. There are way too many cooks in the kitchen at this point.

It would take a total system overhaul that would include reorganizing many part of the government to "fix it". I just dont see it as a feasible outcome.

---

Same. I think it's a decades long project if it can even be done. Most likely what you could do in the short term is leverage the government to put pressure on big pharma to lower drug prices. If it's a $2 pill in every other country it should not be a $1500 pill in the US. That's probably the quickest way to lower one aspect of the problem. Hospitals and care facilities being profit centers will be much harder to unravel, same with cost of care as they're tied together.

---

I'll take a stab at it.

We just need to be honest that health care isn't really a functioning market. People don't shop around for the cheapest cancer treatment. Our only real cost controls are private insurance companies' payouts, and Medicare/etc payouts. More often than not, though, private insurance controls costs by shafting patients, or excluding them entirely if they can, because that's better than the insurance company getting dropped by a provider for underpayment.

Once you accept that, there's an obvious solution. Eliminate the private health insurance industry entirely (they literally add nothing to the system), and replace it with one, government run insurance company. The money you would have paid to your employer for health insurance just becomes a payroll tax. Unemployed people don't lose their insurance, they get subsidized just like now. The alphabet soup of government health becomes one simple insurance system.

So how does that fix the problem? The government now has full control of payouts. They could start by essentially paying what private insurance is paying now. Then over the course of 50 years or whatever they could slowly tighten the payment spigot, giving hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies time to adjust to lower payments from the "single payer" without major disruption.

Bottom line: We'd benefit from way more efficient administration in the short term, and over the long term would tackle the real cost drivers, while leaving the rest of the system private and letting them figure it out.

---

That's exactly what we need…

Your whole premise of shopping can be solved by divorcing health Insurance from a company benefit, that's really part of your compensation. People are relaxed in the life and want others to do it for them. Your suggestion is that Government do it. My suggestion is for individuals do it. People can join a pool if they want to spread the risk. We have many insurance companies doing this now, like Medi-share https://www.medical-share.com

Now, we already have Government run health insurance providers that some can get on. I'm sure you will think this is completely efficient, right?

Smapty, you're only get traction with your ideas with like-minded people. So, at some point, will you get your idea mandates to people that don't agree with you? I certainly hope not.

BTW, one of the most desired thing, for people that have the means to do so, is paying for their primary care physician as an access.

---

You're basically suggesting that we don't change anything. The problem now is that we have so many different payers, pools, etc. Even the ACA right now is severely limited by the fact that some providers simply choose not to accept those plans. Cost controls are limited when the providers are in the driver's seat to pick and choose who pays them.

The magic of "single payer" is that it eliminates that payment shell game, while creating the largest possible risk pool to further lower everyone's costs. And by definition every provider would accept your insurance, because there's only one choice.

Anyway, obviously the devil is in the details, but at least it's a "concept of a plan".

Faux News is coming along, belatedly.

And here it is:

Documents declassified by CIA Director John Ratcliffe — at the Olympic level.

Emails from George Soros’ Open Society Terrorist Foundation:

“It will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump,” approved by HRC — Hillary Rodham Clinton — “to tie Trump to… pic.twitter.com/YuzijuuwFI

— 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸 (@Real_RobN) October 17, 2025

💥WOW💥

⁉️DID YOU KNOW - USAID was, IN FACT, funding BOTH the Wuhan Lab gain-of-function research AND Smartmatic Election Systems⁉️

this mean that USAID was simultaneously funding BOTH the election-rigging technology that would steal the 2020 election WHILE manufacturing and… pic.twitter.com/mosRVNJRFu

— The Rubber Duck ™ (@TheRubberDuck79) October 17, 2025

🚨 IT’S ABOUT TIME.

Secretary Hegseth just announced he will DECLASSIFY ALL files and evidence related to Benghazi.

“The families of those brave men deserve the truth — and some closure.”

For years, the truth about Benghazi was buried under corruption, lies, and political… pic.twitter.com/IXPop9xE4s

— Charlie’s Voice Rising (@CharlieK_news) October 17, 2025

Alleged pro-Hamas Oct. 7 attacker living in Louisiana arrested by FBI

https://nypost.com/2025/10/17/us-news/alleged-pro-hamas-oct-7-attacker-living-in-louisiana-arrested-by-fbi/
- - - -
"An affidavit accuses Mahmoud Amin Ya-qub Al-Muhtadi, a resident of Lafayette, Louisiana, violated federal law by providing, attempting to provide, or conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization through his alleged involvement in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel. He is also accused of fraud and misuse of visa, permits and other documents"

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

wolf howl said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"

---

Really?

Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.

If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.

If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.

Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).

But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.

---

Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.

---

Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.

National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.

And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.

Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).

---

And they probably rely on the US for all their defense..

---

No they "probably" do not. That is obviously and demonstrably false.

And regardless, again, their per-capita spending on health care is far LESS than ours. It's not like they're just spending more per-capita than us, throwing more money at the problem than we are, and getting better results that way. They have systems that are far more efficient than ours and they spend less per-person than we do.

We spend more, and get less for those dollars, than any developed nation in the world.

If someone comes to you and says "we have a system that will cover more Americans, provide more adequate coverage, and we'll spend less per-person than with the old system," what would your response be?

---

Of course everyone would want that but you're either raising taxes or cutting services/budget somewhere else to achieve it the way healthcare is setup in the US today.

The US spends grossly more on healthcare for a worse product/outcome. That needs to be fixed. Hospitals being profit centers is absolutely driving a significant portion of that problem. That model needs to change first, IMO. Unfortunately, the more government gets involved, the worse everything seems to get for citizens so I'm not sure how to do this effectively, and certainly not in today's political climate.

---

Fair post, and agreed. It's a real challenge with no easy, obvious, solutions. It's going to be a slog.

One of the things I feel strongest about though is we can't in good conscience repeal-and-not-replace.

It is totally unnecessary and counterproductive and speaks horribly of us as a nation to have a spike in cancelled insurance coverage for the ill, deferred and deficient care, medical bankruptcies, and an overall decline in quality of life just because we're in a hurry to score political points.

If you want to repeal Obamacare, perfectly fine, but we've got to figure out what to replace it with that's an improvement first, and "improvement" doesn't simply mean "a cheaper solution for the federal government and a much more expensive, less effective solution for tax-paying Americans."

---

Agreed, you can't just pull the rug without some alternative solution that's ideally an improvement over a currently broken option, IMO.

The brokenness of the US healthcare system is so deep it'll be nearly impossible to fix without a lot of pain somewhere. Was talking to a guy today that lived in the Netherlands for 10 years (wife is from there) and he loved their healthcare. Of course they spend a ton less on defense but I don't believe that's the majority of the US problem (we already spend way more per patient then they do). He mentioned doctors over there aren't paid extravagantly like in the US and administration is much less as well not to mention hospitals aren't for profit. His background is managing healthcare for Fortune 50 companies so I value his opinion.

I really do not believe any plan will be much better than what we currently have without overhauling for profit health care in America. No clue how to do that at this point.

---

Yep. My hottest take is that the current version of healthcare in this country cannot be solved. There are way too many cooks in the kitchen at this point.

It would take a total system overhaul that would include reorganizing many part of the government to "fix it". I just dont see it as a feasible outcome.

---

Same. I think it's a decades long project if it can even be done. Most likely what you could do in the short term is leverage the government to put pressure on big pharma to lower drug prices. If it's a $2 pill in every other country it should not be a $1500 pill in the US. That's probably the quickest way to lower one aspect of the problem. Hospitals and care facilities being profit centers will be much harder to unravel, same with cost of care as they're tied together.

---

I'll take a stab at it.

We just need to be honest that health care isn't really a functioning market. People don't shop around for the cheapest cancer treatment. Our only real cost controls are private insurance companies' payouts, and Medicare/etc payouts. More often than not, though, private insurance controls costs by shafting patients, or excluding them entirely if they can, because that's better than the insurance company getting dropped by a provider for underpayment.

Once you accept that, there's an obvious solution. Eliminate the private health insurance industry entirely (they literally add nothing to the system), and replace it with one, government run insurance company. The money you would have paid to your employer for health insurance just becomes a payroll tax. Unemployed people don't lose their insurance, they get subsidized just like now. The alphabet soup of government health becomes one simple insurance system.

So how does that fix the problem? The government now has full control of payouts. They could start by essentially paying what private insurance is paying now. Then over the course of 50 years or whatever they could slowly tighten the payment spigot, giving hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies time to adjust to lower payments from the "single payer" without major disruption.

Bottom line: We'd benefit from way more efficient administration in the short term, and over the long term would tackle the real cost drivers, while leaving the rest of the system private and letting them figure it out.

---

That's exactly what we need…

Your whole premise of shopping can be solved by divorcing health Insurance from a company benefit, that's really part of your compensation. People are relaxed in the life and want others to do it for them. Your suggestion is that Government do it. My suggestion is for individuals do it. People can join a pool if they want to spread the risk. We have many insurance companies doing this now, like Medi-share https://www.medical-share.com

Now, we already have Government run health insurance providers that some can get on. I'm sure you will think this is completely efficient, right?

Smapty, you're only get traction with your ideas with like-minded people. So, at some point, will you get your idea mandates to people that don't agree with you? I certainly hope not.

BTW, one of the most desired thing, for people that have the means to do so, is paying for their primary care physician as an access.

---

You're basically suggesting that we don't change anything. The problem now is that we have so many different payers, pools, etc. Even the ACA right now is severely limited by the fact that some providers simply choose not to accept those plans. Cost controls are limited when the providers are in the driver's seat to pick and choose who pays them.

The magic of "single payer" is that it eliminates that payment shell game, while creating the largest possible risk pool to further lower everyone's costs. And by definition every provider would accept your insurance, because there's only one choice.

Anyway, obviously the devil is in the details, but at least it's a "concept of a plan".

---

I guess you just skipped right by me wanting to divorce Health Insurance from employers…

That would change the system dramatically!!! People would be selecting their provider, thus creating their own competition.

Also, this single payer system will go broke like every other government program. What happens when we start talking about its insolvency? Tax more or cut services. Sorry, I'm not a fan of the government involved.

It surprises me that you do…. As a person that has managed people's money and been an executive in a company, the value of turning a profit is important, right?

Now what? We should just shoot the survivors now right?

The US carried out a strike on a boat in the Caribbean on Thursday that did not kill everyone on board, two US officials told @NatashaBertrand & @kylieatwood.

There are believed to be survivors among the crew, but status is unclear.

Confirms Reuters. https://t.co/UGuSs6l6vy

— Zachary Cohen (@ZcohenCNN) October 16, 2025

hokiewolf said:

---

Now what? We should just shoot the survivors now right?

The US carried out a strike on a boat in the Caribbean on Thursday that did not kill everyone on board, two US officials told @NatashaBertrand & @kylieatwood.

There are believed to be survivors among the crew, but status is unclear.

Confirms Reuters. https://t.co/UGuSs6l6vy

— Zachary Cohen (@ZcohenCNN) October 16, 2025

---

Why are you pretending like you care? I bet I know why.....

hokiewolf said:

---

Now what? We should just shoot the survivors now right?

The US carried out a strike on a boat in the Caribbean on Thursday that did not kill everyone on board, two US officials told @NatashaBertrand & @kylieatwood.

There are believed to be survivors among the crew, but status is unclear.

Confirms Reuters. https://t.co/UGuSs6l6vy

— Zachary Cohen (@ZcohenCNN) October 16, 2025

---

We should take them into custody and interrogate them. Then let them go back to their home country as we publicly praise their cooperation.