Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It's not. It's a good thing.

It's a good thing to keep health care costs out of reach of uninsured people by subsidizing demand?

What's wrong with allowing more people into the markets to provide care, equipment, supplies, etc. at more affordable prices so that more people can afford their own care without insurance, subsidized or unsubsidized?

Are you concerned that insurance companies would sell less policies if people could afford to pay for their own care without insurance?

It is good because it will make insurance affordable for more people.

I am far from convinced that insurance is a cause of expensive health care.

Don't you understand that subsidized demand drives up prices/costs?

What you need is more people getting health care training at a lower cost so that they don't have to repay their students debts by working for big-spending insurance companies that control who can and can't afford health care.

The problem currently is that there is scarcity on the supply side of health care and people who work in the industries want to keep it that way to make more money. That is the reason some people get excluded from health care, i.e. to maintain scarcity and thus scare everyone else into doing all the things they do to stay insured and afford their copayments, deductibles, drug costs, etc.

In a free market, high prices cause more people to enter the market, but that is very difficult in health care because of the high costs of education/training, insurance, equipment, assistants, etc. etc.


Well, check out the costs of medical equipment, drugs, supplies, and basically everything that gets funded through insurance and ask yourself why there aren't more competitors entering these markets to produce these things at a lower price.

Is it because it is not physically possible to produce these things more cheaply or because there are obstacles that prevent more affordable suppliers from entering the markets?

The bottom line is doctors and dentists and pharmacies no longer work as independent businesses for the general public. They either work for insurance companies that control whether and how the majority of people get access to health care; or they work for rich people who can afford to self-pay care at prices that very few people can afford.

Why shouldn't more people enter these markets and provide care and supplies at more affordable prices so uninsured people can afford care without insurance?

I don't know that this is universally true.

More importantly, I don't see how insurance is subsidized demand.



I've nothing against more people entering the health care business. But I don't see how the existence of health insurance is a barrier to that happening.



I don't know, but I doubt that it is because of the existence of health insurance.



Health insurance doesn't have to control whether or how people get health care.

My old insurance plan (that Barack Obama kicked me off from) didn't have any such controls. I was free to see any doctor I wanted.



I've nothing against more affordable health care. I just don't blame insurance for any lack of affordability.

Also, some procedures will always require insurance because they will always be expensive.

Things are going well for some and not so much in that direction for certain others. Who'd of expected a bunch of Conservative would be so pleased with NY Governor Cuomo and perplexed by their 'golden lad'?

New Yorkers favor Andrew Cuomo and his methods...

Andrew Cuomo Trounces Don-Don Trump

Cuomo won over Trump by a HUGE margin when it came to the best way to proceed in reopening New York State.


All voters - Cuomo 78%, Trump 16%.
Among Republicans and Conservatives, only 36% are with Trump on the reopen.

Cuomo also takes the lead on the issue of face masks!

. Siena College Poll Results

If there is an opportunity to sell something for more money instead of less, sellers opt to sell for more money.


Do you know how much medical procedures and drugs cost? Do you know how much insured people pay out of pocket and how much the insurer subsidizes what they pay?


Health insurance determines what professionals make, and what they make determines what they get charged for things like education, equipment, supplies, insurance, etc. So people can't just choose to become doctors, dentists, nurses, and pharmacists/chemists without taking on debts at a level that requires them to work for a certain level of pay. Most end up signing with a certain insurer, who guarantees they will get clients and thus money, but if not, they have to work for high-paying clients because that is the only way they are going to afford their debt-payments.

If you wanted to go into some health care trade and provide affordable services without working for an insurance company, you would likely drown in debt.


Supply and demand works like this: if customers aren't buying something at a high price, you sell it for a lower price or you go out of business. Companies that are making rubber gloves or aspirin or ventilators or blood pressure cuffs or splints or whatever are selling them for a lot more than they cost to make because of how much they can charge for them due to insurance paying the bill instead of individuals.

It is a situation that's great for businesses and workers who want to charge and make as high of revenue/income as possible, but for customers/clients, it requires subsidies being paid by insurers and/or government. So the challenge is removing the middle-man so people can get health care services without dealing with insurers/government controlling them and their doctors. That could be a recipe for disaster, e.g. if people start abusing health care services because they can afford to; but it would alleviate the problem of people not being able to get/afford healthcare without finding a job with benefits and/or relying on government to maintain their coverage through fluctuations in political climate.



You were only free to do that because they were subsidizing you. The moment subsidies end or your insurance gets dropped, you would not be able to afford care, i.e. because they are expecting you to pay at the subsidized rate and not at the rate you can afford without subsidies/insurance.



Well it's practically impossible to get the medical training, licensing, insurance, equipment, and supplies you need without going into debt and working for an insurance company. Medical schools alone aren't going to let people get training/degrees without paying tuition and fees, so just for the education you're going to be in debt and that makes you beholded to finding an employer that pays well enough for you to pay your debts.


That's your assumption. To test it, let's say this pandemic economic shutdown thing became permanent and precious little money was changing hands and many businesses stopping and high unemployment. At that point, you have lots of people with nothing but time on their hands, so the question becomes what do they do with that time? How do they put it to good use?

First, farmers and the food supply chain would have to commit to producing and providing food for everyone so they don't starve. Then, people need shelter and clothing, etc. so you have to figure out a way to keep them warm and dry. At that point, you're going to still have lots of people with lots of time they could devote to doing whatever needs doing to provide 'expensive' medical services.

This is basically already how the economy works, only we pay people in money instead of them working voluntarily because they have nothing else to do with their time. This is why the whole affordable health care debate doesn't actually make sense; i.e. because we complain that people are not getting access to health care, yet we don't want to make it affordable except by subsidizing it. So if anyone wants to go into healthcare without going into debt so they can help people who can't afford to pay (much), they can't because they have to work for insurance companies that have rules about only serving clients who are covered by their insurance.

And that is how uninsured people are denied health care.

Pence's wife said he didn't know he was supposed to wear a mask. Where the **** has he been the last six weeks? Where the **** has SHE been the last six weeks?

If the Mayo Clinic did not make him put one on, what does it matter. Maybe the doctors should be taking the heat.

Taiwan’s intelligence chief says North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is ‘sick’
https://nypost.com/2020/04/30/taiwans-intel-chief-says-north-koreas-kim-jong-un-is-sick/

Canada Bans Assault-Style Weapons After Mass Shooting In Nova Scotia
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/canada-bans-assault-style-weapons_n_5eac4e17c5b624b396929ac8

There was no semi automatic rifle used in that mass shooting, if there had been the media would be reporting it and so far they are withholding the info, that means handgun.

So if they reveal it was a semiautomatic rifle they will be lying?

The PM put a no publicity order on the shooting, and no one objected. They want to scotch the lure of fame by whackjobs who do shootings to get their names in the paper. The Nova Scotia shooter, who has not been identified, but it has been reported that he used a handgun, and a long gun. What type of long gun he used has not been reported. So, as usual, Baldimo doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Like I said in the other thread, Canada reminds me of that guy who baked his dog in an oven.

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2020/04/05/florida-man-bakes-dog/

Owners who abuse their serfs are pretty shameful.

Serfdom itself is shameful. But there is no reason for Canada to compound their shame by abusing their serfs.

America sure is lucky that we're a free country.

What they did was give just enough vague information to appease the masses and push their illogical gun control. It is likely there was no semi automatic rifle used or the media would be talking about it, it's a shame the Canadian media is so controlled by the government.