Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

05-05-2017 , 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
Honestly, it makes sense to get the high-risk patients off of the individual market. That will enable 95% of the other customers to have cheaper health insurance. They could have used the 3.9 and 0.9 taxes to fully fund the high risk pools. But it's a GOP bill so but nahhh.
Ooooh sick burn. You attack the GOP like Trump attacks Putin.
05-05-2017 , 01:19 PM
I am curious the thoughts of those that advocate for using massive resources and funding to support the life of a 90 year old terminal patient if it means those funds are not going towards supporting children with cancer?

I mean I am for an entire overhaul of the US healthcare industry and UHC, but when it comes to allocation of resources, his argument seems fairly clear and all anyone can say is WHY WOULD YOU LET SOMEONE DIE! without actually facing the realities of scarcity and allocation under our current system.
05-05-2017 , 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oroku$aki
Would you have him taken out the back door and left on the street? Euthanasia? I'm curious how this would work in practice.
Nah, it's easiest and morally neutral to just forget about that guy and go back to his own life. Out of sight, out of mind.
05-05-2017 , 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHip41
itt, awval advocating for letting the sick people die
Funny how he absolutely 100% supports the philosophy behind the bill, but then he brags that he is going to "vote the bastards out in 2018." What a load of ****.

Hey awval, you never answered my earlier question. How much protesting, marching and calling your reps to complain about AHCA and other awful Trump legislation have you done?
05-05-2017 , 01:23 PM
I'm actually with Awval999 on this. If we want to have real, rational universal healthcare, there should be priority conditions/treatments, approved and unapproved drugs (for financial reasons), lifetime limits, etc. I've thought this for 20 years, and it's how we basically handle every other part of life, for reasons that are obvious--unlike Awval999 it didn't take a quasi-medical education for me to figure it out. But republicans have always argued that denying a person any type of treatment was equivalent to "death panels"...and now they are throwing millions off healthcare so it's cheaper. The GOP has a broken leg and just needs to by taken out back and shot.
05-05-2017 , 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HastenDan
I am curious the thoughts of those that advocate for using massive resources and funding to support the life of a 90 year old terminal patient if it means those funds are not going towards supporting children with cancer?

I mean I am for an entire overhaul of the US healthcare industry and UHC, but when it comes to allocation of resources, his argument seems fairly clear and all anyone can say is WHY WOULD YOU LET SOMEONE DIE! without actually facing the realities of scarcity and allocation under our current system.
Behold, Dan makes solid, cogent point.

Don't forget, every decade there are more, and more expensive ways (and also more effective, cheaper ways), to intervene and prolong life.
05-05-2017 , 01:25 PM
Einbert, Our House, master3004, Thehip41... all arguing for not maximizing the greater good of American civilians, effectively lobbying for the death of children with cancer. Let me guess, you all are anti-vaxxers as well? Despicable.
05-05-2017 , 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
I support Trump with all my heart. I just don't support anything he does or his legislative positions.
One last time. I promise.
05-05-2017 , 01:26 PM
There is no scarcity. There is plenty of wealth for every single person in the U.S. to have true, decent coverage that actually protects them.
05-05-2017 , 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Behold, Dan makes solid, cogent point.

Don't forget, every decade there are more, and more expensive ways to intervene and prolong life. And the guy who just got on the Supreme Court claims to believe it should be prolonged at all costs.
Ha! Hey I thought the same when I saw your post.
05-05-2017 , 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HastenDan
Einbert, Our House, master3004, Thehip41... all arguing for not maximizing the greater good of American civilians, effectively lobbying for the death of children with cancer. Let me guess, you all are anti-vaxxers as well? Despicable.
Even for you, this is stupid and that is about as low a bar as possible.
05-05-2017 , 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HastenDan
I am curious the thoughts of those that advocate for using massive resources and funding to support the life of a 90 year old terminal patient if it means those funds are not going towards supporting children with cancer?
How about we kill you and feed thousands with your money and retirement funds? Same argument. 1000s >>> 1
05-05-2017 , 01:28 PM
Death Panel ITT
05-05-2017 , 01:28 PM
"If you really cared about dying children with cancer, you'd support AHCA!"

Uh, okay.

Here are the est hikes in premiums for ppl w/:
Asthma: $4k
Diabetes: $5.5k
Pregnancy: $17k
Arthritis: $26k
Cancer: $140k!
05-05-2017 , 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
Behold, Dan makes solid, cogent point.

Don't forget, every decade there are more, and more expensive ways (and also more effective, cheaper ways), to intervene and prolong life.
Looks, spoke too soon





Quote:
Originally Posted by HastenDan
Einbert, Our House, master3004, Thehip41... all arguing for not maximizing the greater good of American civilians, effectively lobbying for the death of children with cancer. Let me guess, you all are anti-vaxxers as well? Despicable.
Good one
05-05-2017 , 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
There is no scarcity. There is plenty of wealth for every single person in the U.S. to have true, decent coverage that actually protects them.
Cite or ban? I mean I am on board with a massive revolutionary change to the healthcare industry and how it ties into the government and financial industry. But that is just part of envisioning HastenUtopia.

Avval is simply referencing the vast amount of resources that he feels are being misdirected to the point that it is a net negative on providing care with the resources available. There are arguments to be made and aspects to be discussed, but 'HERP DERP JUST GONNA LET PEOPLE DIE HUH YA SCUMBAG?!' isn't one of them.
05-05-2017 , 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HastenDan
I am curious the thoughts of those that advocate for using massive resources and funding to support the life of a 90 year old terminal patient if it means those funds are not going towards supporting children with cancer?

I mean I am for an entire overhaul of the US healthcare industry and UHC, but when it comes to allocation of resources, his argument seems fairly clear and all anyone can say is WHY WOULD YOU LET SOMEONE DIE! without actually facing the realities of scarcity and allocation under our current system.
Not interested in the why, I just want to know the how.
05-05-2017 , 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
"If you really cared about dying children with cancer, you'd support AHCA!"

Uh, okay.

Here are the est hikes in premiums for ppl w/:
Asthma: $4k
Diabetes: $5.5k
Pregnancy: $17k
Arthritis: $26k
Cancer: $140k!
Good thing no one said that, be less dishonest einbert.
05-05-2017 , 01:31 PM
We have enough resources to shelter, feed, and offer healthcare to everyone. This is well-known. The only question is why aren't we spending those resources on humanity, why instead are we spending them on wars, destruction of the planet, and propping up the already massively wealthy.
05-05-2017 , 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HastenDan
Good thing no one said that, be less dishonest einbert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HastenDan View Post
I am curious the thoughts of those that advocate for using massive resources and funding to support the life of a 90 year old terminal patient if it means those funds are not going towards supporting children with cancer?
.
05-05-2017 , 01:34 PM
Amazingly avwal makes a good point. Of course we spend too much on end of life care. This is because we are not good as a culture dealing with death. There have been some great studies that show end of life education can drastically reduce health care costs.
05-05-2017 , 01:34 PM
When the massively wealthy receive handouts, something is really ****ed beyond belief.
05-05-2017 , 01:35 PM
I know they don't teach comprehension and rationality at video game speed running school, but jesus man.

and as for

Quote:
We have enough resources to shelter, feed, and offer healthcare to everyone. This is well-known. The only question is why aren't we spending those resources on humanity, why instead are we spending them on wars, destruction of the planet, and propping up the already massively wealthy.
Yeah I mean, it isn't much of a question man. It is just that part of the answer has to do with Obama and Hillary and our corporatist bought and sold politicians, but that part of the answer will only lead you to screeching about the evil republicans.
05-05-2017 , 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey
Rather than causing a big disruption in N.Y.C., I will be working out
of my home in Bedminster, N.J. this weekend. Also saves country
money!
Donald J. Trump*@realDonaldTrump


Lol hmmmmmmm

http://www.trumpnationalbedminster.com/
Guess Melania locked him out?
05-05-2017 , 01:37 PM
HastenDan are you stalking me? Why poke me with the personal details about my life? Are you obssessed with me?

      
m