President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Finally. A rational response to unfolding world events.

 

Fucko has no idea who Harry Truman is.

 

Not watching Twin Peaks is certainly a strike against him.

 

Indeed ... pointing out the obvious similarities between health care organizations and business organizations in response to this ...

... was pretty weird.

 

I'm coming around on the ACA, though. Took DaughterQuant for her annual physical/checkup this morning, and I didn't have to give 'em any money at checkout. Before the ACA, today's visit wouldn't have been free.

 

On this one issue, health care, I think this is wrong. And other western democracies prove it.

It is possible for something to be unique. National defense is unique. I think health care is, too.

 

IMO the "truth" is more that people of both parties don't seem to understand that the insurance model is not a good model for a nation's healthcare system. That's why the free market can't "fix" it, no matter how unfettered, because the insurance model doesn't lead to (what I believe, anyway) are the desired societal ends.

Absolutely, in insurance, you pay a "risk-based premium" to give you some protection/coverage in case something bad happens. For car insurance, for instance, if you've crashed a bunch of cars, have a number of speeding tickets, etc., you will likely pay a significantly higher rate. Fair enough. I don't think as a society, we will or should lose much sleep over Mr. Speedy's plight.

However, when applying the insurance model to healthcare, here's who would naturally pay a risk-based premium: 1) those with pre-existing conditions, including infants; 2) the elderly. Just for starters. It might make the insurance so prohibitively expensive that many can't afford it (oops, I'm sorry – they'll have the "option" not to pay premiums they can't afford), or some insurance companies might simply refuse coverage, period. Because hey, these people are more likely to need lots of expensive care.

Unlike with Mr. Speedy, however, I think society does (or should) have a problem with "risky" patients basically not having affordable – or even any – access to healthcare. That's not the kind of society I think ours should be. That's the whole point of a broader "safety net," for the old and the sick and the infirm, which is something this nation at least used to believe it.

In order to ensure that those with pre-existing conditions, the elderly, etc., have reasonable access to decent care without going bankrupt, then at some point IMO the government is going to have to get involved. Whether it's overseeing healthcare directly via Medicaid or (God forbid!) a single-payer system, or compensating the insurance companies in some way for not letting them charge the "risk-based premium," or whatever. But the free market is not going to "fix" healthcare under the insurance model, because it's not a model that leads to the desired societal results.

 

Right. A robust, and functioning health insurance market is a good and necessary thing. But, making it the sole vehicle through which people access healthcare doesn't work.

It fucks up the insurance markets, and the costs for everyone. And it doesn't necessarily provide good healthcare for the poor, or those with extensive medical needs.

 

No, not just days off from practice. I'm talking about days without the ability to receive treatment for medical issues, since the limited-hours trainer will not be at work. In your world, that may be fine, given your irrational hatred for the whole system.

 

Health care isn't and never has been a GOP issue, and it shows.

 

There is nothing irrational about his hate of the NCAA.

 

Yeah. There's plenty of things I'm irrational about, but the NCAA ain't one of them.