What is?

[SlugButter]

Except the Republicans are the ones who are fighting against affordable healthcare for all.
Hmmm, that contradicts what you said. And I can prove it. Wanna prove YOUR thesis?

You must be a masochist, constantly coming back for more beatings.

Rob, they both have perpetuated our problems. Why was it that Obamacare gave all the insurance companies who were “evil” all the power? The argument before Obamacare was that insurance companies were corrupt and denied care to people to make bigger profits, yet when we implemented the ACA all those same evil companies made record profits after getting extra power. I don’t get how democrat voters didn’t recognize that immediately.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Although I agree with you for sure, contract fraud is the worst.. The worst fraud occurs in the contracts given out to supply medicines, chemicals and workers to the system. The private companies and middle men getting contracts for the services and products they provide are skimming too much money from the system.

It's a triangular problem. Providers, insurers, pharmas.
The big three that control the costs of healthcare. Not one, nor all, are willing to reduce profits in order to make HC affordable for the masses. And no one wants gov't interfering in private business to force the issue. Many do not want gov't taking it over either, because the role of government is not to be in business.

So, you end up with the ACA. Which people hate, even though no other solution seems acceptable.
And then the cycle starts over.

 

[SlugButter]

It's a triangular problem. Providers, insurers, pharmas.
The big three that control the costs of healthcare. Not one, nor all, are willing to reduce profits in order to make HC affordable for the masses. And no one wants gov't interfering in private business to force the issue. Many do not want gov't taking it over either, because the role of government is not to be in business.

So, you end up with the ACA. Which people hate, even though no other solution seems acceptable.
And then the cycle starts over.

The ACA made insurance companies record profits. It is not an acceptable replacement for single payer and just perpetuates the problem even worse.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

No, they are not wanting it bloated with all the extra unnecessary shiit democrats like to inflate bills with. You know, like they did with the COVID relief bill. A bunch of spending that had nothing to do with COVID. Dems love to spend money they don't have and Republicans don't want more debt. But to you people that means they are evil.

Drumpf increased gov't spending by $100 MILLION more in four years than Obama did in eight. Additionally, Drumpf tried another go at trickle down theory by tax cuts.
So, he DECREEASED income while he INCREASED spending. This GUARANTEES more debt.
'Kind of like if you took out a loan on your own house to live in after you quit a job.

Please explain how "Republicans don't want more debt" with those facts in mind.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

The ACA made insurance companies record profits. It is not an acceptable, replacement for single payer and just perpetuates the problem even worse.

I didn't say it was the best solution, but so far has been the only thing close to a solution.
Drump guaranteed he would abolish it and fix the system. Did I miss the press release that he got it done?

The argument about insurers is kind of funny though. The same people (against ACA) who rail that it was destroying business (insurers) are now saying it caused record profits.
Well yes, when more people get insurance than ever before, I suppose profits can go up. I'll bet that concept happens often.
Like when they made it a law that houses not pump their gutter runoff into the city sewer system in my town, plumbers and hardware providers made more profit as sump pump pits were installed in 15,000 houses.

 

[SlugButter]

I didn't say it was the best solution, but so far has been the only thing close to a solution.
Drump guaranteed he would abolish it and fix the system. Did I miss the press release that he got it done?

It was never a solution in my opinion. It’s the middle of the road, which is the actual problem. If we went full free market with real competition, it would work better. If we went full on single payer, it would also be better. The ACA was a joke and still is.

 

[SlugButter]

I’m for single payer myself, but a regulated free market would also work. Walking in the middle of the road is getting us run over.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

It was never a solution in my opinion. It’s the middle of the road, which is the actual problem. If we went full free market with real competition, it would work better. If we went full on single payer, it would also be better. The ACA was a joke and still is.

That is the frustrating thing. No free market. Yet if gov't tries to force a free market, people are screaming they should not interfere with private business.
the ACA was an attempt at single payer for anyone who could not get coverage otherwise. So, it was not single payer per se, but it pushed the idea forward. Prior to that, there were far too many people stuck in the middle.

So yes, we need to shlt or get off the pot. The problem is no matter what solution is offered, there is a fight between a smaller number of people with deeper pockets against a larger number of people without.
Money usually wins.

The crazy thing is that Drumpf promised to fix the ACA, yet during his administration the number of uninsured people rose by millions, the cost of healthcare for people rose, insurance company profits rose (GPM's that were traditionally 1% rose to 3% between 2016 and 2020).
None of those things are an improvement.

 

[SlugButter]

As far as the covid argument goes, I’m a liberal, which means I’m for freedom of all people to perform any action that does not hurt another person. The vaccine argument has became a debate about inaction hurting others, which is where I have a problem. We are confusing actions with inaction. Actions can be regulated and punished, but regulating inaction opens up doors that we don’t want opened. It reminds me of the final episode of Seinfeld, where Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer were imprisoned for watching crimes and not acting to help people being mugged. If we are to start down that road, we can start regulating things in our personal lives that infringes on people being free to make their own decisions. It is a slippery slope the way I see it.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

As far as the covid argument goes, I’m a liberal, which means I’m for freedom of all people to perform any action that does not hurt another person. The vaccine argument has became a debate about inaction hurting others, which is where I have a problem. We are confusing actions with inaction. Actions can be regulated and punished, but regulating inaction opens up doors that we don’t want opened. It reminds me of the final episode of Seinfeld, where Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer were imprisoned for watching crimes and not acting to help people being mugged. If we are to start down that road, we can start regulating things in our personal lives that infringes on people being free to make their own decisions. It is a slippery slope the way I see it.

Obviously getting into philosophy and legal arguments, but the Seinfeld analogy is tenuous. In that example, their inaction doesn't cause direct harm to the person being mugged. The mugger is causing the harm.

In the case of the vaccination, it can be argued that inaction CAN cause direct harm on another person or persons if you get sick and share that sickness with others. A similar concept can be seen in the legal issues that arose back when HIV/AIDS started ripping through communities. It was determined someone could be sued for their inaction that brought direct harm to others(i.e not telling someone they were infected before having unprotected *** and then infecting the person).

How an attorney would argue that a failure to get vaccinated ended up directly harming another would be interesting to hear, but if they can track infection clusters from last year down to a single "patient zero", they already have a head start.
If they figure out how to prove that the lack of vaccine pretty much guaranteed the person was able to share their illness, then the game is on. I would almost guarantee that lawsuits are already being prepared for people to be sued for testing positive, then not taking appropriate measures to avoid infecting others.

 

[Firewalker]

Slug with regards to that Seinfeld reference did you know if you are an active EMT or FF'er and see an accident & do not stop and someone happens to see that you are a FF'er say with FF'er or EMT License Plates (Illinois has them and they are a very different color and look) or know you and sees you did not stop you can be sued in a court of law?

Yep very true and legal.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Slug with regards to that Seinfeld reference did you know if you are an active EMT or FF'er and see an accident & do not stop and someone happens to see that you are a FF'er say with FF'er or EMT License Plates (Illinois has them and they are a very different color and look) or know you and sees you did not stop you can be sued in a court of law?

Yep very true and legal.

I've heard of the good sam law, but have never heard you can be sued for NOT taking an action to help when you have the skills.
Does this apply to doctors and law enforcement, nurses and physical therapists, etc. in emergency situations?

Can you provide any reference to statute or or legal decisions? I reference the good sam law occasionally, but I wouldn't want to reference this without knowing what I am talking about.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

The problem with things like healthcare is that our federal gov is involved in things it shouldn't be; the federal gov was formed to protect the country, not run it. Now we have corporations simply paying the government to make laws in huge favor to them, and we can all get f*cked.

 

[SlugButter]

Obviously getting into philosophy and legal arguments, but the Seinfeld analogy is tenuous. In that example, their inaction doesn't cause direct harm to the person being mugged. The mugger is causing the harm.

In the case of the vaccination, it can be argued that inaction CAN cause direct harm on another person or persons if you get sick and share that sickness with others. A similar concept can be seen in the legal issues that arose back when HIV/AIDS started ripping through communities. It was determined someone could be sued for their inaction that brought direct harm to others(i.e not telling someone they were infected before having unprotected *** and then infecting the person).

How an attorney would argue that a failure to get vaccinated ended up directly harming another would be interesting to hear, but if they can track infection clusters from last year down to a single "patient zero", they already have a head start.
If they figure out how to prove that the lack of vaccine pretty much guaranteed the person was able to share their illness, then the game is on. I would almost guarantee that lawsuits are already being prepared for people to be sued for testing positive, then not taking appropriate measures to avoid infecting others.

I just disagree with what we can enforce and what we can’t enforce, in balance with allowing the freedom of people in all aspects possible. This debate gets nasty, but that’s the core of the issue on both sides. Neither side wants anyone to die or wants to steal freedoms from people, at least the voters don’t. Politicians on the other hand could be debated. They ****.

 

[Firewalker]

Rob I was a FF'er and EMT in Illinois. I was told this from the day I joined and we were reminded every 3 months of this. I know it is in regards to a FF'er and EMT, I would figure on it also goes to doctor's, police and nurses as well. This is in Illinois that all this happened. I made sure that while not in district I did not have my blue light on my dash. Nor could I have it mounted in Chicago but that is because Chicago Police use blue lights.

I still have many friends in Illinois that are in that line of work and we have talked about it many times on how you have to be careful when out in public life. One reason why many FF'ers do NOT get those plates regardless if it is a volunteer or paid dept.

Heck till the day I die I can be pulled into court for ANY accident, Fire or ambulance call I was on. Another thing they tell you when you sign up. Not that it will happen (knock on wood) but it is something that is told flat out when you sign up.