Home
In nearly 30 yrs of being in medicine, the single payer government has never prevented me or anyone I know, from ordering a test, prescribing a Med, or doing a procedure or surgery when needed. Not so do the "for profit" private insurers with whom I am arguing with, 2-3 times a week. In Nomads worse case scenario, fear private insurance
+3
alohafri
sharpy
blondy28
7 posters
Single Payer Push
sharpy- Fanboy
- Posts : 915
Join date : 2017-05-10
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:
Conservative compared to you. Moderate if you listen to Kark, a certain person I live with, and the talking heads at Fox.
I don't mind you bringing it up. It's not like you were hitting on me or anything...or worse, I was going along with it (not that there's anything wrong with that).
I'm happy with the insurance I have. I would not give it up in favor of a single-payer. I fear I'd lose too much. I also get the option of remaining on my insurance after I retire (which I will do). You have the option of giving up your insurance through Verizon. If you feel that strongly about it, why don't you do it? And I don't bring that up to challenge or embarrass you, I'm also curious.
Well, you didn't call me a clueless cunt or cocksucking shmuck from St. Chuck, so we're off to a good start. And for the record, if I'm going to hit on you I'll go directly to your Grindr profile page and swipe right.
Couple of ways to answer your question. Would I give up our Verizon coverage for single payer? Holy shit...there's not a big enough font on this board for me to type the word YES! The Verizon coverage is great. Probably the best in the country, along with what most of you teachers get (I was a teacher...I know these things). But still, we pay probably a few grand a year for it through Pam's payroll deductions, along with the couple of grand a year in copays and deductibles we sometimes have to pick up. If we converted to a Canadian style of healthcare, we'd have no copay, no deductible, no premiums, no limits, etc. I'd have no reason...absolutely none...to stay on the Verizon plan. We'd presumably pay a higher tax to have this, but I know enough about how Verizon operates to know full well Pam would be offered some kind of raise or additional benefits that are commensurate with the savings Verizon would now get due to not paying her $18k a year of premiums. That plus the copay and deductible and premium savings would be more than enough to cover the increase in our taxes.
Another way to answer this is "would I give up some kind of coverage I really like for something I might not like as much if it meant universal coverage?" Again, a resounding yes. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, because IF it were a tad worse for me, or even discernibly worse for me, it would be immensely better for probably 20-40% of the country if including the 10% with no coverage, and the other 30% who have coverage that's not very preferable due to either very high premiums or really high deductibles. PLUS, I have the benefit of being very familiar with Medicare (due to handling my mom's affairs) enough to know that she's never had a single test or treatment challenged or rejected or not paid. Anything her doctor wants for her, she is allowed to get. Because of my familiarity with Medicare, I know full well that I'd have nothing to fear under single payer, not to mention how much Canadians fucking LOVE their healthcare system. About the worst thing I've heard a Canadian say about their system is "We really like it but sometimes it kinda sucks in a certain circumstances, such as needing a non-essential surgery...", compared to in the US, where that's one of the nicer things someone would say here about our system. Most of the Canadians just flat out say they love it. My closest friends there love it. Find me some old folks in the US that will say their Medicare sucks. My dad loved it when he was alive. My in-laws love theirs (but they fucking HATE the idea of a single payer USA).
I think my point is that yes, there is a possibility that a single payer system would give you or me somewhat reduced quality of service than what we get now, but we're in a very privileged group. And who says that our jobs couldn't still buy us improved coverage above and beyond the quality of a single payer universal coverage? They do a bit of that in England and to a lesser extent, in Canada. Seems that a slight reduction in quality provided to you and/or me in exchange for better and more cost efficient coverage for about 100 million Americans is a sacrifice worth considering. One could also argue that building it into our tax system would provide a great deal of increased financial stability across this country. Some folks pay 10k a year for a policy with 12k in deductibles. That's 22k in one year if they run into a health debacle. Fuck that. I'd rather see us all pay a smoothly applied tax increase for it, probably the same way I escrow for taxes on my mortgage payment, rather than pay two tax installments on my own in a couple of big chunks.
frank bonifacic- Not a Fanboy
- Posts : 225
Join date : 2017-05-05
I was about to state the same thing-but without the Kark reference.alohafri wrote:Nomads44 wrote:In single payer, who prioritizes authorization of a surgery. Do types of surgery get priority? Does cancer treatment get preference over what might be an elective surgery? Does elective surgeries in effect go out the window? Someone is recommended for knee replacement surgery... who does he get behind? A line, or can he butt to the front depending on his job or the emergency level, i.e., patient cannot walk vs. can get around with a limp vs. horrible pain, but is not noticeable in his gait?
All of this stuff is over my head. Will the influential folks, politicians, well to do, famous, sports notorieties get preferential treatment?
How to prevent abuse? How to determine who is abusing? Do the unemployed get preferential treatment so they can join the workforce? Or do people not working get low priority? If no priority, then we all go to the back of the line no matter who we are, and the ones needing help the most surely perish during their wait.
Without knowing the answers to many of these questions, I cannot be for or against it.
P.S. For those of you that thought (or maybe hoped) I was gone, I could not figure out how to delete myself from the group, nor could our Administrator. If one of you knows how and wishes to do so, please do.
No one hopes you are gone Jim. If we did, we would have left you with Kark in the other place.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:
I'm happy with the insurance I have. I would not give it up in favor of a single-payer. I fear I'd lose too much. I also get the option of remaining on my insurance after I retire (which I will do). You have the option of giving up your insurance through Verizon. If you feel that strongly about it, why don't you do it? And I don't bring that up to challenge or embarrass you, I'm also curious.
Remember, private insurance has a financial incentive to find ways not to pay for your treatments, your tests, etc. They are trying to make a profit. Peoples' jobs are at stake if there's not a profit. And even now, insurance claims folks are given incentives for successfully rejecting coverage or payments. Granted, under ACA, there's a lot less denying of claims since pre-existing conditions aren't really a thing anymore. But that's possibly going away with this new push to kill ACA. Like Sharpy said, and like I've experienced, the gov't isn't in the game of rejecting or dictating treatments, so before you opt for private over public, allow time for full consideration of the risks that your insurer suddenly gets jumpy about their bottom line.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:
Conservative compared to you. Moderate if you listen to Kark, a certain person I live with, and the talking heads at Fox.
I don't mind you bringing it up. It's not like you were hitting on me or anything...or worse, I was going along with it (not that there's anything wrong with that).
I'm happy with the insurance I have. I would not give it up in favor of a single-payer. I fear I'd lose too much. I also get the option of remaining on my insurance after I retire (which I will do). You have the option of giving up your insurance through Verizon. If you feel that strongly about it, why don't you do it? And I don't bring that up to challenge or embarrass you, I'm also curious.
Well, you didn't call me a clueless cunt or cocksucking shmuck from St. Chuck, so we're off to a good start. And for the record, if I'm going to hit on you I'll go directly to your Grindr profile page and swipe right.
Couple of ways to answer your question. Would I give up our Verizon coverage for single payer? Holy shit...there's not a big enough font on this board for me to type the word YES! The Verizon coverage is great. Probably the best in the country, along with what most of you teachers get (I was a teacher...I know these things). But still, we pay probably a few grand a year for it through Pam's payroll deductions, along with the couple of grand a year in copays and deductibles we sometimes have to pick up. If we converted to a Canadian style of healthcare, we'd have no copay, no deductible, no premiums, no limits, etc. I'd have no reason...absolutely none...to stay on the Verizon plan. We'd presumably pay a higher tax to have this, but I know enough about how Verizon operates to know full well Pam would be offered some kind of raise or additional benefits that are commensurate with the savings Verizon would now get due to not paying her $18k a year of premiums. That plus the copay and deductible and premium savings would be more than enough to cover the increase in our taxes.
Another way to answer this is "would I give up some kind of coverage I really like for something I might not like as much if it meant universal coverage?" Again, a resounding yes. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, because IF it were a tad worse for me, or even discernibly worse for me, it would be immensely better for probably 20-40% of the country if including the 10% with no coverage, and the other 30% who have coverage that's not very preferable due to either very high premiums or really high deductibles. PLUS, I have the benefit of being very familiar with Medicare (due to handling my mom's affairs) enough to know that she's never had a single test or treatment challenged or rejected or not paid. Anything her doctor wants for her, she is allowed to get. Because of my familiarity with Medicare, I know full well that I'd have nothing to fear under single payer, not to mention how much Canadians fucking LOVE their healthcare system. About the worst thing I've heard a Canadian say about their system is "We really like it but sometimes it kinda sucks in a certain circumstances, such as needing a non-essential surgery...", compared to in the US, where that's one of the nicer things someone would say here about our system. Most of the Canadians just flat out say they love it. My closest friends there love it. Find me some old folks in the US that will say their Medicare sucks. My dad loved it when he was alive. My in-laws love theirs (but they fucking HATE the idea of a single payer USA).
I think my point is that yes, there is a possibility that a single payer system would give you or me somewhat reduced quality of service than what we get now, but we're in a very privileged group. And who says that our jobs couldn't still buy us improved coverage above and beyond the quality of a single payer universal coverage? They do a bit of that in England and to a lesser extent, in Canada. Seems that a slight reduction in quality provided to you and/or me in exchange for better and more cost efficient coverage for about 100 million Americans is a sacrifice worth considering. One could also argue that building it into our tax system would provide a great deal of increased financial stability across this country. Some folks pay 10k a year for a policy with 12k in deductibles. That's 22k in one year if they run into a health debacle. Fuck that. I'd rather see us all pay a smoothly applied tax increase for it, probably the same way I escrow for taxes on my mortgage payment, rather than pay two tax installments on my own in a couple of big chunks.
Then why don't you just give it up? Join the exchanges!
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:
Well, you didn't call me a clueless cunt or cocksucking shmuck from St. Chuck, so we're off to a good start. And for the record, if I'm going to hit on you I'll go directly to your Grindr profile page and swipe right.
WTF is a "Grindr"?
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:
Then why don't you just give it up? Join the exchanges!
The exchanges aren't single payer. If we dumped our Verizon insurance, we'd be giving up an 18k benefit so that we can pay 18k out of our pockets. That wouldn't exactly make any sense. The exchanges don't exist for folks like you or me. They exist primarily because folks with health issues couldn't afford the exorbitant premiums that private insurers charge. Unfortunately, they also use those exchanges for folks that don't get coverage through their employer, and those folks pay too high premiums to cover the costs of the sick folks that HAD to get ACA. I have a number of friends on ACA. Folks I know that had diabetes, or asthma, or colitis tell me that ACA has dramatically reduced their costs of coverage. Healthy folks say their coverage costs went up dramatically.
If anything, Congress ought to be trying to fix this one issue as their main priority. If they did this, ACA could run very nicely and healthy people would be more willing to pay for coverage.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:
Well, you didn't call me a clueless cunt or cocksucking shmuck from St. Chuck, so we're off to a good start. And for the record, if I'm going to hit on you I'll go directly to your Grindr profile page and swipe right.
WTF is a "Grindr"?
Tinder for gay folks.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:Just another viewpoint here.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/17/how-berniecare-slams-working-people/
Like Timmy said, he's never had gov't turn down anything he's ordered. My mom-in-law has had both of her knees replaced, not out of need, but more out of want for more flexibility and a little less pain in her knees. I didn't know she had any problems with her knees, but they did it for her with no questions asked.
I'm not saying your column writer doesn't make any good points, but we don't exactly have a history of our gov't rejecting treatments for the elderly up to now, so do we just assume they'll begin rejecting under single payer? She seems to think so, but I don't see enough legitimacy of that assertion for it to be taken seriously. She also notes that no employer would be allowed to offer any kind of private insurance. Says who? Why couldn't a doc run a boutique practice for folks that have special coverage or who are wealthy enough to pay in cash for their treatments. Such things exist in London. I could envision a system where executives have some kind of additional health insurance benefit for boutique coverage and they can see their rich folk doctors.
Seemed to me like she really is just making the argument in this article that single payer can't work, even though it works all over the world and the people using that system of healthcare are typically happier with their coverage than Americans are. I'd say her arguments are on thin ice with very little substance to back up her points.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:
Well, you didn't call me a clueless cunt or cocksucking shmuck from St. Chuck, so we're off to a good start. And for the record, if I'm going to hit on you I'll go directly to your Grindr profile page and swipe right.
WTF is a "Grindr"?
Tinder for gay folks.
Which leads to my next question. What's a "Tinder"? LOL
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:
Then why don't you just give it up? Join the exchanges!
The exchanges aren't single payer. If we dumped our Verizon insurance, we'd be giving up an 18k benefit so that we can pay 18k out of our pockets. That wouldn't exactly make any sense. The exchanges don't exist for folks like you or me. They exist primarily because folks with health issues couldn't afford the exorbitant premiums that private insurers charge. Unfortunately, they also use those exchanges for folks that don't get coverage through their employer, and those folks pay too high premiums to cover the costs of the sick folks that HAD to get ACA. I have a number of friends on ACA. Folks I know that had diabetes, or asthma, or colitis tell me that ACA has dramatically reduced their costs of coverage. Healthy folks say their coverage costs went up dramatically.
If anything, Congress ought to be trying to fix this one issue as their main priority. If they did this, ACA could run very nicely and healthy people would be more willing to pay for coverage.
I'm not married to an ideology. I understand getting basic health care to those who don't have any. I also understand that I got screwed with ACA. But I also believe that lasting change will only come through a bipartisan effort. "Repeal and Replace" has a new life. If it passes on a party line vote, it too will be challenged when the Democrats regain control over part of the government, maybe replacing it with single payer. Then single payer will be replaced and we will be back at square one.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
With Trump and Un acting like children, hurricanes galore, and 7.1 magnitude earthquakes in Mexico City, I think the point will soon be moot anyway.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:
I'm not married to an ideology. I understand getting basic health care to those who don't have any. I also understand that I got screwed with ACA. But I also believe that lasting change will only come through a bipartisan effort. "Repeal and Replace" has a new life. If it passes on a party line vote, it too will be challenged when the Democrats regain control over part of the government, maybe replacing it with single payer. Then single payer will be replaced and we will be back at square one.
I'd be interested in hearing how ACA screwed you. Premiums go way up?
I was thinking and I've also heard it suggested that with the latest repeal efforts, there will be billions of dollars of fed money being block-granted to states and that some of those states may choose to begin a single payer state system with that money and with some kind of modest tax increase in those states. A few have come fairly close in recent years to trying to do this. This GOP effort may end up being the fuel behind a single payer experiment in some states, whereby if it works, the dam bill break and everyone else will likely go in the same direction. I see this single payer thing heading in the same direction of the marriage equality push that began about 15 yrs ago. At first it seemed unlikely. A few states tried and it didn't work out, and then finally a few states broke through and it turned out ok, and the Lord didn't strike the entire state dead with lightning, and the masses didn't suddenly become more gay, and then states started passing it like dominoes falling. Before long, the vast majority began seeing and accepting it as an acceptable norm. 20 yrs from now, people will wonder how we ever denied same sex marriage. 40 yrs from now, people will wonder how we possibly took so long to have a single payer system when we're such a wealthy country.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:With Trump and Un acting like children, hurricanes galore, and 7.1 magnitude earthquakes in Mexico City, I think the point will soon be moot anyway.
Is this covered in Revelations?
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:
I'm not married to an ideology. I understand getting basic health care to those who don't have any. I also understand that I got screwed with ACA. But I also believe that lasting change will only come through a bipartisan effort. "Repeal and Replace" has a new life. If it passes on a party line vote, it too will be challenged when the Democrats regain control over part of the government, maybe replacing it with single payer. Then single payer will be replaced and we will be back at square one.
I'd be interested in hearing how ACA screwed you. Premiums go way up?
I was thinking and I've also heard it suggested that with the latest repeal efforts, there will be billions of dollars of fed money being block-granted to states and that some of those states may choose to begin a single payer state system with that money and with some kind of modest tax increase in those states. A few have come fairly close in recent years to trying to do this. This GOP effort may end up being the fuel behind a single payer experiment in some states, whereby if it works, the dam bill break and everyone else will likely go in the same direction. I see this single payer thing heading in the same direction of the marriage equality push that began about 15 yrs ago. At first it seemed unlikely. A few states tried and it didn't work out, and then finally a few states broke through and it turned out ok, and the Lord didn't strike the entire state dead with lightning, and the masses didn't suddenly become more gay, and then states started passing it like dominoes falling. Before long, the vast majority began seeing and accepting it as an acceptable norm. 20 yrs from now, people will wonder how we ever denied same sex marriage. 40 yrs from now, people will wonder how we possibly took so long to have a single payer system when we're such a wealthy country.
Premiums didn't go up per se. We have been able to keep our premiums down through various ways (yearly blood tests, etc.). However, in order to keep DW on my insurance, I have to pay an additional sum per pay check, just a bit less than it would be for her to go on her own insurance. This didn't start until ACA. Also, rather than the insurance staying put, we have to reapply every year which is a royal pain in the ass. The insurance year doesn't line up with the school year, which is another confusion pain in the ass, also starting with ACA.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:With Trump and Un acting like children, hurricanes galore, and 7.1 magnitude earthquakes in Mexico City, I think the point will soon be moot anyway.
Is this covered in Revelations?
I just keep watching the skies for Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum in some kind of space fighter.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:
Premiums didn't go up per se. We have been able to keep our premiums down through various ways (yearly blood tests, etc.). However, in order to keep DW on my insurance, I have to pay an additional sum per pay check, just a bit less than it would be for her to go on her own insurance. This didn't start until ACA. Also, rather than the insurance staying put, we have to reapply every year which is a royal pain in the ass. The insurance year doesn't line up with the school year, which is another confusion pain in the ass, also starting with ACA.
So you're saying there was a premium increase to keep wifey on the plan (you don't specify how much), and some annual bullshit you now have to go through. Not sure the annual bullshit is ACA mandated, because we don't go through any annual bullshit with Verizon. in our case, it was seamless. Regardless, unless your premium increase was vast, this seems like a reasonable amount of sacrifice to have lowered the uninsured rate in the US from 18% to about 9%. That's about 30 million people that didn't use to have coverage. There's not really a way to help an additional 30 million people without some additional cost or sacrifice by some of us.
Under ACA you also no longer have a max coverage benefits amount, which would possibly come into effect if you were to have cancer or a serious heart surgery. Most policies pre-ACA had a policy benefits limit.
ACA ain't perfect, but there were some very positive facets of it.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:
WTF is a "Grindr"?
Tinder for gay folks.
Which leads to my next question. What's a "Tinder"? LOL
Tinder is the app for straight folks looking to get laid in a major hurry. Highly popular with the single 20-somethings.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
You don't have to re-up every year for Verizon coverage? We do and were told that it was ACA rules (unless the district is lying to us).SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:
Premiums didn't go up per se. We have been able to keep our premiums down through various ways (yearly blood tests, etc.). However, in order to keep DW on my insurance, I have to pay an additional sum per pay check, just a bit less than it would be for her to go on her own insurance. This didn't start until ACA. Also, rather than the insurance staying put, we have to reapply every year which is a royal pain in the ass. The insurance year doesn't line up with the school year, which is another confusion pain in the ass, also starting with ACA.
So you're saying there was a premium increase to keep wifey on the plan (you don't specify how much), and some annual bullshit you now have to go through. Not sure the annual bullshit is ACA mandated, because we don't go through any annual bullshit with Verizon. in our case, it was seamless. Regardless, unless your premium increase was vast, this seems like a reasonable amount of sacrifice to have lowered the uninsured rate in the US from 18% to about 9%. That's about 30 million people that didn't use to have coverage. There's not really a way to help an additional 30 million people without some additional cost or sacrifice by some of us.
Under ACA you also no longer have a max coverage benefits amount, which would possibly come into effect if you were to have cancer or a serious heart surgery. Most policies pre-ACA had a policy benefits limit.
ACA ain't perfect, but there were some very positive facets of it.
My "spousal surcharge" is $81.00 per paycheck, over $2100 per year, in addition to what I pay for the insurance in the first place. This is done to try to force us to push our spouses out of our insurance. The thing that really sucks is that the people who have spouses in the district don't have to pay the spousal surcharge. It seems to me that they should have to unless the spouse decides to get single coverage instead of "riding on the coattails" of their spouse.
We have no maximum coverage benefits amount. Never have as long as I've been here. A friend who has since passed, went through an organ transplant and cancer treatments and was covered all the way through. We never had a problem with pre-existing conditions either.
The health care coverage is one of the main benefits of being a teacher. Sorry if you think it's selfish to want to hold on to that like grim death.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:
WTF is a "Grindr"?
Tinder for gay folks.
Which leads to my next question. What's a "Tinder"? LOL
Tinder is the app for straight folks looking to get laid in a major hurry. Highly popular with the single 20-somethings.
Did I miss the closing of bars?
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:
The health care coverage is one of the main benefits of being a teacher. Sorry if you think it's selfish to want to hold on to that like grim death.
It's not at all selfish to want the best for your family! I don't mean to imply otherwise. But I think we need, as a society, to decide what our national societal priorities are. If we view ensuring equal access to healthcare and medicine as a priority, then we shouldn't expect any such achievement to come without sacrifice, be it cost or hassle or both.
Pam always hands off her annual benefits re-enrollment to me to handle, and usually asks me "are we making any changes or can I just check the box to leave it as is?" I always say "I don't plan to make any changes", and then that's the last I hear of it. Pam isn't a details person on stuff like this, so I can assure you that she is NOT filling out a new application or some kind of long, re-enrollment process. She'd most surely pass that off on me, and she hasn't.
Now, back to the discussion of societal priorities and sacrifice. I'm constantly taken aback by the argument that single payer will create "rationing of care." This comes across to me as similar to saying that ending world hunger might mean I can't have as much food as I currently eat. Isn't a concern for rationed care another way of saying "I want to carve 10% to 30% of Americans out of the healthcare process so that I never have to wait longer for my medical service? THAT strikes me as selfish. It amazes me that people say this with a straight face, some of whom are Christians or some other religion that purports to love one another. Isn't rationed care the whole idea, i.e. I want everyone to have the same access that Pam and I have, even if it means I might get a little less? Or have to wait a little longer? I am going to henceforth refer to "rationing" as "sharing", since that's what it really is.
Last edited by SoxIlliniRob on Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:16 am; edited 1 time in total
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:
WTF is a "Grindr"?
Tinder for gay folks.
Which leads to my next question. What's a "Tinder"? LOL
Tinder is the app for straight folks looking to get laid in a major hurry. Highly popular with the single 20-somethings.
Did I miss the closing of bars?
If they go to bars, they actually have to talk to one another. Dicking around on their phones is much easier.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:
WTF is a "Grindr"?
Tinder for gay folks.
Which leads to my next question. What's a "Tinder"? LOL
Tinder is the app for straight folks looking to get laid in a major hurry. Highly popular with the single 20-somethings.
Did I miss the closing of bars?
If they go to bars, they actually have to talk to one another. Dicking around on their phones is much easier.
Pun intended?
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:alohafri wrote:
WTF is a "Grindr"?
Tinder for gay folks.
Which leads to my next question. What's a "Tinder"? LOL
Tinder is the app for straight folks looking to get laid in a major hurry. Highly popular with the single 20-somethings.
Did I miss the closing of bars?
If they go to bars, they actually have to talk to one another. Dicking around on their phones is much easier.
Pun intended?
Not particularly, although I thought it was pretty clever AFTER having written it and realized that it contained a pun.
|
|
|