Believe it or not I think Ryan is on the right track here after today. Sure I would love to burn it all down and fuck the consequences but that is not responsible leadership.Trump did what he did with the EO. Ryan is doing all he can to repeal as much of it as possible without democrat votes. Libs and true blue cons are unhappy. So what.To get the new plan they need 8 democrat votes in the Senate so there has to be a compromise. Or they try and the dems obstruct and wear it in 2018.Trump is engaged trying to get both sides of the GOP to take this track. It seems doable.The worst parts of it that people really hated are gone if this step passes. That's a win politically.Trump is stupid, remember that. Like when he said Obama wire tapped him and the Russia allegations dried up over night.Real stupid that guy AARP, American Cancer Patients association, doctors groups, literally every group is against it.it has no chance and the democrats will take no criticism for obstructing it Disagree What's up for a vote now doesn't need democrats. It's the repeal part and will be done through reconciliation You don't even know the part you say everyone is against Go ahead and run on getting the mandate back. Please what's up now isn't going to pass. democrats or not. Disagree. Trump, Ryan and Cruz will get it through. This is the easy part kicking millions off of insurance, raising costs, and increasing the deficit is not the easy part
Believe it or not I think Ryan is on the right track here after today. Sure I would love to burn it all down and fuck the consequences but that is not responsible leadership.Trump did what he did with the EO. Ryan is doing all he can to repeal as much of it as possible without democrat votes. Libs and true blue cons are unhappy. So what.To get the new plan they need 8 democrat votes in the Senate so there has to be a compromise. Or they try and the dems obstruct and wear it in 2018.Trump is engaged trying to get both sides of the GOP to take this track. It seems doable.The worst parts of it that people really hated are gone if this step passes. That's a win politically.Trump is stupid, remember that. Like when he said Obama wire tapped him and the Russia allegations dried up over night.Real stupid that guy AARP, American Cancer Patients association, doctors groups, literally every group is against it.it has no chance and the democrats will take no criticism for obstructing it Disagree What's up for a vote now doesn't need democrats. It's the repeal part and will be done through reconciliation You don't even know the part you say everyone is against Go ahead and run on getting the mandate back. Please what's up now isn't going to pass. democrats or not. Disagree. Trump, Ryan and Cruz will get it through. This is the easy part
Believe it or not I think Ryan is on the right track here after today. Sure I would love to burn it all down and fuck the consequences but that is not responsible leadership.Trump did what he did with the EO. Ryan is doing all he can to repeal as much of it as possible without democrat votes. Libs and true blue cons are unhappy. So what.To get the new plan they need 8 democrat votes in the Senate so there has to be a compromise. Or they try and the dems obstruct and wear it in 2018.Trump is engaged trying to get both sides of the GOP to take this track. It seems doable.The worst parts of it that people really hated are gone if this step passes. That's a win politically.Trump is stupid, remember that. Like when he said Obama wire tapped him and the Russia allegations dried up over night.Real stupid that guy AARP, American Cancer Patients association, doctors groups, literally every group is against it.it has no chance and the democrats will take no criticism for obstructing it Disagree What's up for a vote now doesn't need democrats. It's the repeal part and will be done through reconciliation You don't even know the part you say everyone is against Go ahead and run on getting the mandate back. Please what's up now isn't going to pass. democrats or not.
Believe it or not I think Ryan is on the right track here after today. Sure I would love to burn it all down and fuck the consequences but that is not responsible leadership.Trump did what he did with the EO. Ryan is doing all he can to repeal as much of it as possible without democrat votes. Libs and true blue cons are unhappy. So what.To get the new plan they need 8 democrat votes in the Senate so there has to be a compromise. Or they try and the dems obstruct and wear it in 2018.Trump is engaged trying to get both sides of the GOP to take this track. It seems doable.The worst parts of it that people really hated are gone if this step passes. That's a win politically.Trump is stupid, remember that. Like when he said Obama wire tapped him and the Russia allegations dried up over night.Real stupid that guy AARP, American Cancer Patients association, doctors groups, literally every group is against it.it has no chance and the democrats will take no criticism for obstructing it Disagree What's up for a vote now doesn't need democrats. It's the repeal part and will be done through reconciliation You don't even know the part you say everyone is against Go ahead and run on getting the mandate back. Please
Believe it or not I think Ryan is on the right track here after today. Sure I would love to burn it all down and fuck the consequences but that is not responsible leadership.Trump did what he did with the EO. Ryan is doing all he can to repeal as much of it as possible without democrat votes. Libs and true blue cons are unhappy. So what.To get the new plan they need 8 democrat votes in the Senate so there has to be a compromise. Or they try and the dems obstruct and wear it in 2018.Trump is engaged trying to get both sides of the GOP to take this track. It seems doable.The worst parts of it that people really hated are gone if this step passes. That's a win politically.Trump is stupid, remember that. Like when he said Obama wire tapped him and the Russia allegations dried up over night.Real stupid that guy AARP, American Cancer Patients association, doctors groups, literally every group is against it.it has no chance and the democrats will take no criticism for obstructing it
Believe it or not I think Ryan is on the right track here after today. Sure I would love to burn it all down and fuck the consequences but that is not responsible leadership.Trump did what he did with the EO. Ryan is doing all he can to repeal as much of it as possible without democrat votes. Libs and true blue cons are unhappy. So what.To get the new plan they need 8 democrat votes in the Senate so there has to be a compromise. Or they try and the dems obstruct and wear it in 2018.Trump is engaged trying to get both sides of the GOP to take this track. It seems doable.The worst parts of it that people really hated are gone if this step passes. That's a win politically.Trump is stupid, remember that. Like when he said Obama wire tapped him and the Russia allegations dried up over night.Real stupid that guy
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt. I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care. I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions. While yet is an issue for the 90% that are current covered, I'm not thinking the other 10% that don't currently have insurance would add to that issue much. That being said, I'm sure the reduced waste in billing that currently goes on will easily cover those people. Fair point.The pros of uniform coverage are:- People don't die- Negotiating in bulk saves money in theory - see Medicare D for an example of how the gubment is somehow able to supremely fuck this up- Reduced bureaucracy / inefficiency to some extentCons would be:- The government is likely to screw it up- I almost always prefer free market solutions- One size fits all solutions means that I'm likely to pay the same in taxes as a fat smoker whose diet consists entirely of foods with the words "frozen" "hydrogenated" and "artificial sweeteners" on the labelsIn theory, I could likely get behind some sort of national healthcare proposal that only has catastrophic coverage and an annual check up or two, but then again, check my cons list. I agree with most of that. Except about paying the same as the fat lazy smoker. You already do as insurance companies charge the same regardless of health. @dflea true???? I get the non-smoker discount every year, faggot. That's why I quit years ago. How does having full blown AIDS affect your rates? That life insurance or medical insurance? Every place I have worked, I've never been asked about being a smoker other than for life insurance. Medical. My company offers a significant discount on the employee share of your health care expense if you are a non smoker. Interesting. Wish we had that. It's a good way to get people to unfuck themselves and get more skin in the game. I hope they offer a discount for having a normal BMI next.
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt. I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care. I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions. While yet is an issue for the 90% that are current covered, I'm not thinking the other 10% that don't currently have insurance would add to that issue much. That being said, I'm sure the reduced waste in billing that currently goes on will easily cover those people. Fair point.The pros of uniform coverage are:- People don't die- Negotiating in bulk saves money in theory - see Medicare D for an example of how the gubment is somehow able to supremely fuck this up- Reduced bureaucracy / inefficiency to some extentCons would be:- The government is likely to screw it up- I almost always prefer free market solutions- One size fits all solutions means that I'm likely to pay the same in taxes as a fat smoker whose diet consists entirely of foods with the words "frozen" "hydrogenated" and "artificial sweeteners" on the labelsIn theory, I could likely get behind some sort of national healthcare proposal that only has catastrophic coverage and an annual check up or two, but then again, check my cons list. I agree with most of that. Except about paying the same as the fat lazy smoker. You already do as insurance companies charge the same regardless of health. @dflea true???? I get the non-smoker discount every year, faggot. That's why I quit years ago. How does having full blown AIDS affect your rates? That life insurance or medical insurance? Every place I have worked, I've never been asked about being a smoker other than for life insurance. Medical. My company offers a significant discount on the employee share of your health care expense if you are a non smoker. Interesting. Wish we had that.
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt. I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care. I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions. While yet is an issue for the 90% that are current covered, I'm not thinking the other 10% that don't currently have insurance would add to that issue much. That being said, I'm sure the reduced waste in billing that currently goes on will easily cover those people. Fair point.The pros of uniform coverage are:- People don't die- Negotiating in bulk saves money in theory - see Medicare D for an example of how the gubment is somehow able to supremely fuck this up- Reduced bureaucracy / inefficiency to some extentCons would be:- The government is likely to screw it up- I almost always prefer free market solutions- One size fits all solutions means that I'm likely to pay the same in taxes as a fat smoker whose diet consists entirely of foods with the words "frozen" "hydrogenated" and "artificial sweeteners" on the labelsIn theory, I could likely get behind some sort of national healthcare proposal that only has catastrophic coverage and an annual check up or two, but then again, check my cons list. I agree with most of that. Except about paying the same as the fat lazy smoker. You already do as insurance companies charge the same regardless of health. @dflea true???? I get the non-smoker discount every year, faggot. That's why I quit years ago. How does having full blown AIDS affect your rates? That life insurance or medical insurance? Every place I have worked, I've never been asked about being a smoker other than for life insurance. Medical. My company offers a significant discount on the employee share of your health care expense if you are a non smoker.
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt. I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care. I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions. While yet is an issue for the 90% that are current covered, I'm not thinking the other 10% that don't currently have insurance would add to that issue much. That being said, I'm sure the reduced waste in billing that currently goes on will easily cover those people. Fair point.The pros of uniform coverage are:- People don't die- Negotiating in bulk saves money in theory - see Medicare D for an example of how the gubment is somehow able to supremely fuck this up- Reduced bureaucracy / inefficiency to some extentCons would be:- The government is likely to screw it up- I almost always prefer free market solutions- One size fits all solutions means that I'm likely to pay the same in taxes as a fat smoker whose diet consists entirely of foods with the words "frozen" "hydrogenated" and "artificial sweeteners" on the labelsIn theory, I could likely get behind some sort of national healthcare proposal that only has catastrophic coverage and an annual check up or two, but then again, check my cons list. I agree with most of that. Except about paying the same as the fat lazy smoker. You already do as insurance companies charge the same regardless of health. @dflea true???? I get the non-smoker discount every year, faggot. That's why I quit years ago. How does having full blown AIDS affect your rates? That life insurance or medical insurance? Every place I have worked, I've never been asked about being a smoker other than for life insurance.
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt. I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care. I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions. While yet is an issue for the 90% that are current covered, I'm not thinking the other 10% that don't currently have insurance would add to that issue much. That being said, I'm sure the reduced waste in billing that currently goes on will easily cover those people. Fair point.The pros of uniform coverage are:- People don't die- Negotiating in bulk saves money in theory - see Medicare D for an example of how the gubment is somehow able to supremely fuck this up- Reduced bureaucracy / inefficiency to some extentCons would be:- The government is likely to screw it up- I almost always prefer free market solutions- One size fits all solutions means that I'm likely to pay the same in taxes as a fat smoker whose diet consists entirely of foods with the words "frozen" "hydrogenated" and "artificial sweeteners" on the labelsIn theory, I could likely get behind some sort of national healthcare proposal that only has catastrophic coverage and an annual check up or two, but then again, check my cons list. I agree with most of that. Except about paying the same as the fat lazy smoker. You already do as insurance companies charge the same regardless of health. @dflea true???? I get the non-smoker discount every year, faggot. That's why I quit years ago. How does having full blown AIDS affect your rates?
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt. I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care. I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions. While yet is an issue for the 90% that are current covered, I'm not thinking the other 10% that don't currently have insurance would add to that issue much. That being said, I'm sure the reduced waste in billing that currently goes on will easily cover those people. Fair point.The pros of uniform coverage are:- People don't die- Negotiating in bulk saves money in theory - see Medicare D for an example of how the gubment is somehow able to supremely fuck this up- Reduced bureaucracy / inefficiency to some extentCons would be:- The government is likely to screw it up- I almost always prefer free market solutions- One size fits all solutions means that I'm likely to pay the same in taxes as a fat smoker whose diet consists entirely of foods with the words "frozen" "hydrogenated" and "artificial sweeteners" on the labelsIn theory, I could likely get behind some sort of national healthcare proposal that only has catastrophic coverage and an annual check up or two, but then again, check my cons list. I agree with most of that. Except about paying the same as the fat lazy smoker. You already do as insurance companies charge the same regardless of health. @dflea true????
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt. I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care. I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions. While yet is an issue for the 90% that are current covered, I'm not thinking the other 10% that don't currently have insurance would add to that issue much. That being said, I'm sure the reduced waste in billing that currently goes on will easily cover those people. Fair point.The pros of uniform coverage are:- People don't die- Negotiating in bulk saves money in theory - see Medicare D for an example of how the gubment is somehow able to supremely fuck this up- Reduced bureaucracy / inefficiency to some extentCons would be:- The government is likely to screw it up- I almost always prefer free market solutions- One size fits all solutions means that I'm likely to pay the same in taxes as a fat smoker whose diet consists entirely of foods with the words "frozen" "hydrogenated" and "artificial sweeteners" on the labelsIn theory, I could likely get behind some sort of national healthcare proposal that only has catastrophic coverage and an annual check up or two, but then again, check my cons list. I agree with most of that. Except about paying the same as the fat lazy smoker. You already do as insurance companies charge the same regardless of health.
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt. I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care. I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions. While yet is an issue for the 90% that are current covered, I'm not thinking the other 10% that don't currently have insurance would add to that issue much. That being said, I'm sure the reduced waste in billing that currently goes on will easily cover those people. Fair point.The pros of uniform coverage are:- People don't die- Negotiating in bulk saves money in theory - see Medicare D for an example of how the gubment is somehow able to supremely fuck this up- Reduced bureaucracy / inefficiency to some extentCons would be:- The government is likely to screw it up- I almost always prefer free market solutions- One size fits all solutions means that I'm likely to pay the same in taxes as a fat smoker whose diet consists entirely of foods with the words "frozen" "hydrogenated" and "artificial sweeteners" on the labelsIn theory, I could likely get behind some sort of national healthcare proposal that only has catastrophic coverage and an annual check up or two, but then again, check my cons list.
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt. I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care. I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions. While yet is an issue for the 90% that are current covered, I'm not thinking the other 10% that don't currently have insurance would add to that issue much. That being said, I'm sure the reduced waste in billing that currently goes on will easily cover those people.
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt. I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care. I've always found this line of thought incredibly stupid due to the way healthcare and health insurance is structured in the US. As an example:- For most helicopter parents these days, if their kid has the sniffles, fuck what it costs, they want the doctor to run every test possible, regardless of logic- From the doctor's perspective, it makes sense for them to say yes to most of helicopter parent's demands, because if the 0.0001% chance that Suzie has racebannon-syndrome comes to fruition, they're going to get their asses sued- Neither person really cares about cost in this case, so the insurance company ends up paying for a few extra tests that don't really make sense, fighting with the doctors, and denying claims (and thus being vilified)Neither of the supposedly rational actors in this situation are acting rationally here, and it leads to billions wasted in unnecessary procedures and millions of hours of back and forth between doctors / patients / and insurance companies.Not sure how to fix this mess. I just know that I don't trust the vast pool of mental midgets in this country to make rational healthcare decisions.
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt. I'm not talking doctors or pharmacists. I'm talking the person paying the bill trying to tell me what procedure to get. That should be between me and the doctor, who should get paid for ensuring I have the right medical care.
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive. Agree, but how do you inspire individuals to pursue expertise in medicine and spend a decade plus of their life going into six fig debt without paying them accordingly. It's a tricky fucking problem no doubt.
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right? My health care shouldn't be determined with a profit motive.
It comes down to conflicting ideas. Is good healthcare a privilege or a right?
https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/839665918754099200nothing more presidential than playing politics with people's lives
Believe it or not I think Ryan is on the right track here after today. Sure I would love to burn it all down and fuck the consequences but that is not responsible leadership.Trump did what he did with the EO. Ryan is doing all he can to repeal as much of it as possible without democrat votes. Libs and true blue cons are unhappy. So what.To get the new plan they need 8 democrat votes in the Senate so there has to be a compromise. Or they try and the dems obstruct and wear it in 2018.Trump is engaged trying to get both sides of the GOP to take this track. It seems doable.The worst parts of it that people really hated are gone if this step passes. That's a win politically.Trump is stupid, remember that. Like when he said Obama wire tapped him and the Russia allegations dried up over night.Real stupid that guy AARP, American Cancer Patients association, doctors groups, literally every group is against it.it has no chance and the democrats will take no criticism for obstructing it Disagree What's up for a vote now doesn't need democrats. It's the repeal part and will be done through reconciliation You don't even know the part you say everyone is against Go ahead and run on getting the mandate back. Please what's up now isn't going to pass. democrats or not. Disagree. Trump, Ryan and Cruz will get it through. This is the easy part kicking millions off of insurance, raising costs, and increasing the deficit is not the easy part Where do you come up with this shit? Nancy Pelosi? The whole reason to do it this way is to avoid all that
Believe it or not I think Ryan is on the right track here after today. Sure I would love to burn it all down and fuck the consequences but that is not responsible leadership.Trump did what he did with the EO. Ryan is doing all he can to repeal as much of it as possible without democrat votes. Libs and true blue cons are unhappy. So what.To get the new plan they need 8 democrat votes in the Senate so there has to be a compromise. Or they try and the dems obstruct and wear it in 2018.Trump is engaged trying to get both sides of the GOP to take this track. It seems doable.The worst parts of it that people really hated are gone if this step passes. That's a win politically.Trump is stupid, remember that. Like when he said Obama wire tapped him and the Russia allegations dried up over night.Real stupid that guy AARP, American Cancer Patients association, doctors groups, literally every group is against it.it has no chance and the democrats will take no criticism for obstructing it Disagree What's up for a vote now doesn't need democrats. It's the repeal part and will be done through reconciliation You don't even know the part you say everyone is against Go ahead and run on getting the mandate back. Please what's up now isn't going to pass. democrats or not. Disagree. Trump, Ryan and Cruz will get it through. This is the easy part kicking millions off of insurance, raising costs, and increasing the deficit is not the easy part Where do you come up with this shit? Nancy Pelosi? The whole reason to do it this way is to avoid all that Then why have they proposed a plan that kicks millions off of insurance, raises costs, and increases the deficit?
Believe it or not I think Ryan is on the right track here after today. Sure I would love to burn it all down and fuck the consequences but that is not responsible leadership.Trump did what he did with the EO. Ryan is doing all he can to repeal as much of it as possible without democrat votes. Libs and true blue cons are unhappy. So what.To get the new plan they need 8 democrat votes in the Senate so there has to be a compromise. Or they try and the dems obstruct and wear it in 2018.Trump is engaged trying to get both sides of the GOP to take this track. It seems doable.The worst parts of it that people really hated are gone if this step passes. That's a win politically.Trump is stupid, remember that. Like when he said Obama wire tapped him and the Russia allegations dried up over night.Real stupid that guy AARP, American Cancer Patients association, doctors groups, literally every group is against it.it has no chance and the democrats will take no criticism for obstructing it Disagree What's up for a vote now doesn't need democrats. It's the repeal part and will be done through reconciliation You don't even know the part you say everyone is against Go ahead and run on getting the mandate back. Please what's up now isn't going to pass. democrats or not. Disagree. Trump, Ryan and Cruz will get it through. This is the easy part kicking millions off of insurance, raising costs, and increasing the deficit is not the easy part Where do you come up with this shit? Nancy Pelosi? The whole reason to do it this way is to avoid all that No. The reason they are doing this is to sneak through billions in tax cuts for the rich before they go through with even more billions in tax cuts for the rich
I'm all for Trump stalling and letting the whole health care system implode under the weight of Obama's best effort
81% of this bored wants poor people to die. It crosses party lines
Believe it or not I think Ryan is on the right track here after today. Sure I would love to burn it all down and fuck the consequences but that is not responsible leadership.Trump did what he did with the EO. Ryan is doing all he can to repeal as much of it as possible without democrat votes. Libs and true blue cons are unhappy. So what.To get the new plan they need 8 democrat votes in the Senate so there has to be a compromise. Or they try and the dems obstruct and wear it in 2018.Trump is engaged trying to get both sides of the GOP to take this track. It seems doable.The worst parts of it that people really hated are gone if this step passes. That's a win politically.Trump is stupid, remember that. Like when he said Obama wire tapped him and the Russia allegations dried up over night.Real stupid that guy AARP, American Cancer Patients association, doctors groups, literally every group is against it.it has no chance and the democrats will take no criticism for obstructing it Disagree What's up for a vote now doesn't need democrats. It's the repeal part and will be done through reconciliation You don't even know the part you say everyone is against Go ahead and run on getting the mandate back. Please what's up now isn't going to pass. democrats or not. Disagree. Trump, Ryan and Cruz will get it through. This is the easy part kicking millions off of insurance, raising costs, and increasing the deficit is not the easy part Where do you come up with this shit? Nancy Pelosi? The whole reason to do it this way is to avoid all that Then why have they proposed a plan that kicks millions off of insurance, raises costs, and increases the deficit? Link?
Every doctor I know...
81% of this bored wants poor people to die. It crosses party lines I want poor and old people to die. Abundance
Every doctor I know hates the paperwork and the red tape. They just want to help people, not worry about what their fucking insurance plan will cover (or not cover).
