Is a low IQ compulsory to be a Republican voter?.

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

McGentrix, this is an absurd statement that you made (telling a mother that a child has already been killed without her consent in exchange for a tax rebate). It is impossible to take this seriously.

That being said.... sure, there are interesting issues about medical care. You have a point that we should give incentives for people to lower their own healthcare costs by healthy choices. But this point is completely derailed by the absurdity of your example.

Maybe you could step away from the grotesque.

I exaggerated the point for effect. I did so to see where is your line drawn for, what a lot of people consider, extravagant spending on medical care.

Quote:

According to the Royal Dutch Medical Association, as many as 650 babies are killed by doctors each year because they are deemed to be in pain or facing a life of suffering.

Is that so far off from what I said though?

If you could stop being outraged by words on the internet for awhile and look at the point being made, do you have an answer besides outrage at words? Do you deem expensive medical care being used to placate the family of someone who would otherwise die without it?

Is that a good use of our dollars?

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

TomTomBinks wrote:

Quote:
You want to decrease the cost of medical care, but you aren't willing to do the things necessary to make that happen?

One thing that could be changed is we could stop treating people that don't have insurance. Period. This way the insurance companies could have absolute control of costs. This would make premiums predictable and lower them. Would you like that? maybe we could give them the authority to refuse payments for self-inflicted conditions,( too many doughnuts) or refuse coverage for people with expensive to treat diseases. Or increase premiums for those who make claims. That would be great, eh Gent?

Isn't that what the Obamacare mandate was kind of doing? Forcing people to purchase health insurance under threats of monetary compensation or jail?

What you are suggesting could be an alternative to the current structure of paying for healthcare... But, what if...

A. The federal govt mandates that every healthcare facility publishes an up to date menu of services and prices. From getting a band-aid to neural pathway reconstruction. That way patients can shop for healthcare and the marketplace can be open to competition.

B. People could purchase health insurance from any company in the US and be part of large pools. Can you imagine if Elon Musk decided to sell health insurance? If you could buy Virgin Health Insurance, would you try that?

C. If you have a healthy lifestyle, you'd pay less than someone with an un-healthy lifestyle or receive some kind of kick back perhaps.

D. Finally, some medical expenses just wouldn't be covered by insurance. Cosmetic surgery would have to be paid for by the patient. eye exams and glasses are cheap enough that there is no reason for insurance to cover that expense. Dental insurance should be a separate plan if you want that, but it shouldn't be part of a general policy. At some point, a condition gets to the point where there is no hope of a cure. There has to be a point where medical experts deem a patient to be basically, and you'll hate this, too expensive to treat. Will be sent home for palliative care.

This is a much better plan I think.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Yes, your exaggeration made the exact opposite point that you intended. Most people reading your examples would react -- "how cruel". If I didn't know your positions I would think that you were writing something equivalent to Swift's Modest Proposal.

As a rhetorical device, your hyperbole missed the mark.

As far as the link... your example proposed that a baby would be taken from its mother and euthanized without her knowledge of consent. The article is when babies are euthanized with the consent of the mother on the advice of a doctor. I consider these two cases to be dramatically different.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

There has to be a point where medical experts deem a patient to be basically, and you'll hate this, too expensive to treat. Will be sent home for palliative care.

This brings to mind my father in law. Both lungs had collapsed. The VA doctor wheeled him out in the hall and told his wife to make him as comfortable as you can. Then was in the process of abandoning him to a sure death. My brother in law, a city detective, told the doctor, "Y'all better treat this man." They reluctantly took him in and he lived a relatively happy existence another five years. He was in fact, doing great, until some asshole told him, "Do you realize how much this is costing?" They made him come in and walk a treadmill, then cut his care drastically. Their telling him he was not worth spending money on caused him to give up. He immediately contracted pneumonia and died. People can be such assholes about this stuff.

1 Reply

@eurocelticyankee,

Well, I would recon you are partially correct for a significant number of voters.
Not to deny a good chunk of Democratic ideas aren't far fetched too.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Not to deny a good chunk of Democratic ideas aren't far fetched too.

Since it's a "good chunk", you should have no problem listing a few "far-fetched" ideas that are characteristically of a Democratic origin, n'est pas?

2 Replies

@snood,

That's easy Snood (and I am a Democrat)

- Trade protectionism.
- Opposition to teacher accountability.
- Government regulation of consensual sex (i.e. "Yes means yes" regulations).
- Censorship on college campuses
- Resistance to tax reform (economists of all stripes recognize that taxing income is nonsensical)

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I'm sorry you had to go through that Edgar.

Individual results will vary, but when talking about the entire country you have to look at the common good.

Bring down healthcare costs and then Your uncle's care wouldn't have been too expensive to maintain.

1 Reply

Trump overwhelmingly leads rivals in support from less educated Americans

Quote:

It was in Nevada, just about month ago, when Donald Trump proclaimed his affection for the uneducated.

“We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated,” the Republican presidential front-runner boasted after coasting to a decisive victory in the state’s caucuses.

He should love them.

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

The common good says don't abandon the sick just to give a tax break to the super wealthy.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Quote:
Not to deny a good chunk of Democratic ideas aren't far fetched too.

Since it's a "good chunk", you should have no problem listing a few "far-fetched" ideas that are characteristically of a Democratic origin, n'est pas?

I was hoping you would acknowledge so as a statistical fact. I don't know why you are interested in hearing my opinion on the matter. Anyway, I decline the invitation leaving you with a hint; when things fall a little too much on the hippie side I am very much a conservative. I detest ultra-relativism! Nonetheless, I am a naturalist with an open heart. Greyish as it should be, not black nor white. Besides, I hate full conformity with the parties agenda. I think for myself.

What matters is that Republicans are so dead wrong in so many topics that you don't need much of an incentive to go with the sane guys...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

What matters is that Republicans are so dead wrong in so many topics that you don't need much of an incentive to go with the sane guys...

True dat

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

That's easy Snood (and I am a Democrat)

- Trade protectionism.
- Opposition to teacher accountability.
- Government regulation of consensual sex (i.e. "Yes means yes" regulations).
- Censorship on college campuses
- Resistance to tax reform (economists of all stripes recognize that taxing income is nonsensical)

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

The common good says don't abandon the sick just to give a tax break to the super wealthy.

Last I checked, the super wealthy can afford the very best health care. Hell, they probably have their own doctors.

It's the poor that need a break. Wouldn't it be more to the common good to lower the costs of all by not spending A LOT of money on VERY few?

I am not sure how you always wrap these kinds of things up with "a tax break to the super wealthy."

Sometimes it's about other stuff.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Not to me.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

ossobucotemp wrote:

Not to me.

What is not to you?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

I listen,

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

The common good says don't abandon the sick just to give a tax break to the super wealthy.

Last I checked, the super wealthy can afford the very best health care. Hell, they probably have their own doctors.

It's the poor that need a break. Wouldn't it be more to the common good to lower the costs of all by not spending A LOT of money on VERY few?

I am not sure how you always wrap these kinds of things up with "a tax
break to the super wealthy."

Sometimes it's about other stuff.

They are trying to make it so the ones needing it the most get it less, to save money. The new policies would cover less and cost more. And the savings? They don't go into the general fund. They mostly go into tax cuts for the super wealthy. So the death squads for Obamacare were imaginary. Under Trumpcare they are real.

But my main point is, by killing off the sick poor, you are not saving money to be used for the rest of us. You are enriching the already enriched. Plus you have a lot more dead people to bury.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

They are trying to make it so the ones needing it the most get it less, to save money. The new policies would cover less and cost more. And the savings? They don't go into the general fund. They mostly go into tax cuts for the super wealthy. So the death squads for Obamacare were imaginary. Under Trumpcare they are real.

But my main point is, by killing off the sick poor, you are not saving money to be used for the rest of us. You are enriching the already enriched. Plus you have a lot more dead people to bury.

Actually. what they are trying to do is reduce costs and the size of government. I am curious as to hoe you came to the conclusion that:

Quote:

And the savings? They don't go into the general fund. They mostly go into tax cuts for the super wealthy.

I've not found evidence of that. Also, there won't be any more or any fewer death squads under Trump as there were under Obama.

You also have not shown that you understand the point I was making. It's not to kill off the sick poor. It's to reduce the cost of medical care. If we could reduce the cost of medical care enough, we wouldn't even need Medicare.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

So the dead in the interest of saving money are necessary collateral damage. You draw a line and say, "It's expensive to treat that one. No treatment."

Nothing has substantially changed in Trumpcare since March, except that iterations 2.0 through 3.1 (the latest scam from Rep. Fred Upton) have made it worse. All the stuff that the Congressional Budget Office predicted would happen—24 million uninsured in a decade, skyrocketing premiums for older people, devastating Medicaid cuts—will still happen. If anything, the number of uninsured will increase with the amendments that have come along with Zombie Trumpcare 2.0-3.1.

What else hasn't changed since March is the whole rationale for this: tax cuts for the rich. This is not about health policy. It's about taxes. House Speaker Paul Ryan still wants the massive tax cuts that come with Obamacare repeal, but he also wants those Medicaid cuts that will allow "deeper tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations in subsequent tax legislation."

That’s because the House GOP health plan reduces revenues by nearly $900 billion over the decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), including $592 billion in tax cuts largely for the wealthy. Passing these tax cuts now as part of a health package allows the GOP to offset their cost through cuts to health care spending—particularly in Medicaid, which CBO estimates the House health care bill cuts by $880 billion over ten years. If these tax cuts were part of tax reform legislation rather than being in the health bill, Republican leaders would have to offset their cost on the tax side to maintain revenue neutrality, as they have said they would do, limiting how sharply they can cut tax rates.
All the hoopla—and the out-and-out lies from Ryan about how this really protects people with pre-existing conditions? Cover for every Republican who just wants to enact those massive tax cuts for the rich and for corporations.

That's the big rush, and at its core, it's all any of this has ever been about. Because it's fundamentally all that being a Republican is about—cutting taxes for the rich.

House Republicans are hell-bent on ripping away our health insurance. Call your member of Congress at 202-224-3121, and demand they vote NO on a renewed Trumpcare that is worse than the one before. Remind them they work for you.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/5/3/1658475/-Reminder-Zombie-Trumpcare-is-not-about-health-care-it-s-about-tax-cuts-for-the-rich

0 Replies

Is a low IQ compulsory to be a Republican voter?.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know