You will never fully privatize it. You can't let people die and the government will pay not private companies. One of those things that sounds good but isn't practical to implement. The government will always be in the health biz, food biz, education biz, transportation biz, etc. in some way.

Seems that logically the gov't could be more of a "general contractor" than provider of health care coverage. Would you have any opposition to opening bids to cover folks that met the threshold criteria to be covered by medicare/medicaid?

What does the GOP want to regulate besides someone's sexual orientation, someone's body and someone's etc.? Both parties cater to the pharms, no doubt so they are untouchable in any situation.

Regulate someone's sexual orientation? If that means that they're not paying for surgery for a gender change, well I guess I'm totally on board with that one as well. Other than that, coverage for everyone is still available. We can argue the abortion coverage and the like, but it won't change the fact that folks could still be covered.

Regulate someone's sexual orientation? If that means that they're not paying for surgery for a gender change, well I guess I'm totally on board with that one as well. Other than that, coverage for everyone is still available. We can argue the abortion coverage and the like, but it won't change the fact that folks could still be covered.

 

I was talking about regulations in general, not just health care stuff.

Seems that logically the gov't could be more of a "general contractor" than provider of health care coverage. Would you have any opposition to opening bids to cover folks that met the threshold criteria to be covered by medicare/medicaid?

 

As long as it was affordable to everyone regardless of income or pre-existing condition. It cannot be denied that more people received coverage with ACA than anything before. It is costly but for the richest country on Earth, I see that as a basic need.

As long as it was affordable to everyone regardless of income or pre-existing condition. It cannot be denied that more people received coverage with ACA than anything before. It is costly but for the richest country on Earth, I see that as a basic need.

I don't disagree with much of that. I agree that we have an obligation to folks to provide the availability of coverage. But you and I both know, if it's something that's optional, some will still refuse, regardless of cost.

I don't disagree with much of that. I agree that we have an obligation to folks to provide the availability of coverage. But you and I both know, if it's something that's optional, some will still refuse, regardless of cost.

 

and I have no problem with that.

I was talking about regulations in general, not just health care stuff.

Well, those stances don't have one iota of pertinence in the discussion of new legislation for health care. I know you're not in lock step with those ideals, but they should have no bearing on how we can obtain health care coverage.

Well, those stances don't have one iota of pertinence in the discussion of new legislation for health care. I know you're not in lock step with those ideals, but they should have no bearing on how we can obtain health care coverage.

 

 

I agree it shouldn't but you never know.

I don't follow. The President-elect is now saying he will keep parts of the bill (pre-existing, for example). Are you saying that if they nix the mandate, the subsidies, etc then they cannot keep the rules about pre-existing?

 

You can't keep them without a new bill from congress. Nixing the budget items kills the current law entirely.

 

I'm 100% on board with this. This country is stronger without Obamacare period.

You can't keep them without a new bill from congress. Nixing the budget items kills the current law entirely.

 

It wouldn't kill the mandate or insurance regulations.

It wouldn't kill the mandate or insurance regulations.

 

I'm pretty sure the mandate can be stopped with 51 votes because it is considered budget related. It was passed with 51 votes.

I'm pretty sure the mandate can be stopped with 51 votes because it is considered budget related. It was passed with 51 votes.

 

This was the reconciliation bill. The PPACA was already signed by then. Congress can add back in the Cornhusker Kickback with 51 votes. :lol2:

As long as it was affordable to everyone regardless of income or pre-existing condition. It cannot be denied that more people received coverage with ACA than anything before. It is costly but for the richest country on Earth, I see that as a basic need.

 

It covered more people because the majority were put into Medicaid, a drain on the system, instead of the private sector, which was supposed to pay into the system. The ACA was broken when it was enacted and has just got worse.

 

I do not see medical insurance as a basic human right.

It covered more people because the majority were put into Medicaid, a drain on the system, instead of the private sector, which was supposed to pay into the system. The ACA was broken when it was enacted and has just got worse.

 

I do not see medical insurance as a basic human right.

 

In this country with our wealth I believe it is. But you are not alone. It goes back to what I have said in previous posts the GOP cares more about none than people. Not criticizing, that just isn't the way I believe.

I won't get into it, as this isn't really the thread for it, but I'll leave it at this.

 

I am very much a believer in Darwinism and the whole Survival of the Fittest mantra.

 

So a young mom who doesn't have insurance because the privatization of health insurance is too expensive for her doesn't get health care for her baby. She'll just chance it. Baby dies.

 

You just going to write that off as survival of the fittest?