115th United States Congress

[Salodin]

Yes, I think both are problematic. I've explicitly said the last time what I'm defending as well in case it gets through now and you claim I'm saving face, backpedaling, or something along those lines


You are numero uno when it comes to the person who is most combative (imo, here) in refusing that govt. mandated/sponsored healthcare is more than just the lives of the people who need healthcare now.

And when you don't move past that at all it's really easy to say "the other side" doesn't want people to be healthy! Which... ok, technically they don't given the immediate reprecussions (and I've said the same thing the last time you tried discussing this with me, as well), but that's like saying I don't want all children to have education if asked should the US government subsidize the world's education and I say no

There's a big difference in me not wanting people to have healthcare and not wanting people to have government sponsored - mandatory - healthcare. It's this weird bait-n-switch where if I'm not ok with the government being the one to handle and distribute something I'm against that something.. which isn't right, you can see that can't you?

Ok, so you want healthcare reform but you don't want that reform to look like government controlled healthcare. What does your solution look like then? And how do you reconcile that, with what the current party in power is trying to do/has done for the last...8 years?

What I'm getting at is, while my solution might not be perfect, I argue it's better than what is being peddled by those in control right now. Do you disagree? I only say this because the majority (if not all) of first world nations has a system better than us, and it's only because it's controlled by the govt.

So yeah, there is nuance in the issue like you keep trying to retort. No one gives a shit about the nuance though because at the end of the day the current system isn't changing in a way that covers more Americans or offers cheaper/better care than what they have now. I'm all for private insurance or healthcare reform if it works, but no one is offering that; one group is offering government healthcare in one form or another, and the other side is offering bundles of deregulation with the hope it does something that no expert agrees it will do. I don't see you debating the merits of any other option, so I assume you side with the gop since you don't want govt. controlled care.

Also, what bane said. My goal with govt. controlled healthcare is to get as many, if not all, Americans all the healthcare they will require in their lives. I don't want access to healthcare; I want that healthcare guaranteed. The GOP is not offering that. Other countries are, and for less than what were paying for ours. You don't want to move even close to a system like that because...?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

What I'm getting at is you want a free market solution (because why, idk), but get upset when people call you out on how the free market leaves the less fortunate behind. This entire debate revolves around how we care for the less fortunate, and how the fortunate are more and more becoming the less fortunate because of the "access to healthcare" the free market has created. Not bashing it, cause it rocks, but in this situation the pursuit of profit through all capitalistic means is probably not the best system for healthcare unless it's heavily regulated to care for the people we want it to care for.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Thunder]

All of the above? I mean, capitalism has its issues, especially unfettered. Money in politics is also a problem through lobbying and basically spending to keep opponents away from power via fact or fiction. We've got Canadians making the same meds we do on the cheap, but since they're not subject to the same regulations we are here, they're kept off the market. We've got viagra as a significant footnote in military spending. Big pharma throws millions at putting their labels on race cars. HIV meds and Epipens go bonkers. I realize I'm bounding here and there, but it just seems like doing the right thing(s) isn't being prioritized.

How's that stuff imply that pharma is keeping people sick deliberately or that Rs are getting money from there being sickness? I used those Qs specifically because it's a popular conspiracy that it is in pharmas interest to keep people sick (despite hep c cure being the most profitable drug, if one company is selling bullshit to keep you sick the other could make more money by curing it all, and other little tidbits I'm prepared with) and I thought that Rs specifically earning money with no healthcare was a big enough leap to make that you wouldn't do it lol

It looks more like the right things are being prioritized when we consider what they're doing and not just what we're seeing. Except for the last two points I think those are all symptoms of whatever the opposite of capitalism is, by the way, no?

Lobbying you say also a problem, so you don't think that's part of capitalism, I agree
Canadian meds cant be sold here because US govt. is keeping them out, yep
Viagra is so big because the military has a big healthcare system, most of that goes to retired military bros. If this gets you heated then uh <_< you might see where I'd go with this
And yeah, pharma spends a lot on marketing, but they're betting on earning more money back which I don't see the issue with
HIV meds (shkreli? he did daraprim which can treat toxoplasmosis which only really occurs in aids/hiv people in the 1st world) went bonkers but still nobody can find a single person who was priced out of it because turing sells it for a dollar to the <40% of people with toxo who do not have insurance and insurance/private hospitals foot the bill for the rest. So if that bothers you just wait until the shenanigans hit when every patient has got healthcare

There are better examples of what I think you were getting at. Take Hep C cure, came out a few years ago. Costs almost 100k for a full treatment. Gilead came to that price point because it did an analysis on # of people who would need it + how much they would pay and maximized profits - which will price people out if it's an important drug, and that's exactly what happened.

And I think that's working as intended because it just makes sense for the most profitable drugs to be cures, and the "free'er" market allows for that. If you govt. mandated they price themselves at a point where everyone can afford it (which in this case would make it cost less than previous-much worse "competitors") it sort of disincentivizes coming up with medicine that's far and away better than the competition if you can't appropriately price it much higher than the competition

[Fiye]

Its also a lot easier to bargain for decent prices when there's literally one insurer.

[Salodin]

Thunder,

I was going to reply to each point but I think it's easier to just make sure you understand that just because your motivation for doing something isn't "i want to fuck over poor people" doesn't mean that your action doesn't fuck over poor people. And even if you don't mean to do it, but still do it, then you are at least partially responsible for the outcome.

For example, the GOP might not want to fuck over the poor with their ACA repeal, but that's what's gonna happen if they succeed. By your logic, they shouldn't be blamed for that because that wasn't their intention, but I disagree.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Also, get that medical innovation shit out of here. There are plenty of proposed solutions to that; it doesn't have to just disappear because suddenly the govt. is cutting the insurance industry out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Thunder]

I think the point is that the free market is never ever ever ever going to provide health care for poor people unless it is legally required to do so... by the government, because the government is the only institution with the authority to do so. because poor people dont turn a profit for the healthcare industry.

so if you keep insisting the government not get involved, that does have the effect of explicitly denying poor people healthcare, even if that's not the intention.

Very fair to say

Is there some chance that the negative unintended consequences of govt. sponsored/mandated healthcare outweigh the benefits of keeping X million poor people on healthcare?

(this stuff would only be able to be somewhat determined given the parameters of what healthcare would eventually look like)
It would change incentives of pharma in some way, which could ring more true to the ol' conspiracy theory that pharma wants you sick, not better (I sort of get into this in my post to arus, idk if I ought to try and go deeper or not)
It would change the incentives for regular folks - no financial consequences to health decisions
It would give the govt. unprecedented authority in "you have to buy this for the welfare of the community under punishment of tax (which is essentially jail if you don't pay the tax)"
Govt. would now have an incentive to regulate our behavior

Whatever the costs are if you just move the numbers around will just get higher year to year, and while we might be the most-awesomest capitalistic country out there, there are some srs projections and theories that ought to scare people from thinking this is a guaranteed moral-good

I'm not so down on the economics of "everyone will live off of everyone else's work" nor the justice behind "freedom without consequences"

[Thunder]

For example, the GOP might not want to fuck over the poor with their ACA repeal, but that's what's gonna happen if they succeed. By your logic, they shouldn't be blamed for that because that wasn't their intention, but I disagree.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

ok, but then you'd be to blame for the consequences of a system you fail to even look at?

The GOP at least looks at the people's lives and makes a more informed decision. Your fingers are in your ears in refusal to admit any nuance of the issue. You literally say as much up there a bit^

This isn't an intent thing. This is a you not considering a lot of consequences and hand-waving it away with "the government can handle it" or forgoing the hand waving entirely

[Salodin]

ok, but then you'd be to blame for the consequences of a system you fail to even look at?

The GOP at least looks at the people's lives and makes a more informed decision. Your fingers are in your ears in refusal to admit any nuance of the issue. You literally say as much up there a bit^

This isn't an intent thing. This is a you not considering a lot of consequences and hand-waving it away with "the government can handle it" or forgoing the hand waving entirely

Lmfaoooo. Ok, I'm trying to handle you fairly.

What exactly about the GOP attempt was informed? The CBO, lead by a Republican, said their bill would not only make 18× million ppl lose coverage, but the people left behind would see premium increases. Every single professional medical group came out against the bill for the same reasons, and still the GOP leadership tried to ram it through. The President even wanted it through. How was that an informed decision when everyone in the industry said it was a bad idea? Do you have fingers in your ear while you shout "I'm a little teapot" whenever someone points out how their proposal would negatively affect America?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

It's not hand waving, it's every solution has a drawback or con you have to regulate away or deal with. My stance is the pros of my position outweigh the pros of the GOP healthcare agenda, and the problems associated with my desire can be worked on and fixed just like we do every other law and problem in this country. You're the one with your fingers in the ears trying to hand wave the healthcare solution that has worked in other first world nations, and apparently for no other reason then you're too lazy to consider it?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Thunder]

Lmfaoooo. Ok, I'm trying to handle you fairly.

What exactly about the GOP attempt was informed? The CBO, lead by a Republican, said their bill would not only make 18× million ppl lose coverage, but the people left behind would see premium increases. Every single professional medical group came out against the bill for the same reasons, and still the GOP leadership tried to ram it through. The President even wanted it through. How was that an informed decision when everyone in the industry said it was a bad idea? Do you have fingers in your ear while you shout "I'm a little teapot" whenever someone points out how their proposal would negatively affect America?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I saw that as destroying the thing (or setting it up for immediate failure) while circumventing people's visceral reaction to wanting free stuff by calling the stuff that would make it insolvent reform

instead of them being pants-on-head retarded and wanting universal healthcare while making it impossible to sustain, to everyone with any sense

[Salodin]

The GOP at least looks at the people's lives and makes a more informed decision.

I just want to make sure people don't miss this gem. I wasn't sold at first, but this guy is as good as Day. Bravo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Thunder]

well this is senseless. It's the same thing as last time

At this point I think it's just ego keeping you from going "yeah, I see the point of the other side but I believe those are problems we will be equipped to deal with"

I was super clear about just wanting that from you, and some others - that there's a reason outside of wanting people to suffer for no government mandated&sponsored healthcare. Maybe it turns out to be wrong, even
And super clear that I was not trying to measure the pros/cons of each side

[Salodin]

It's senseless because you can't concede that maybe there are consequences to actions outside of your original intention. Just because you don't want to hurt the poor plebs doesn't mean you're not hurting the poor plebs.

I literally said there are problems with my proposal, but that they can be regulated and dealt with just like the ACA tried to deal with the problems of a for-profit insurance industry. How is that my ego keeping me from identifying the problems with what I want?

Everyone is super clear that someone might not pursue, for instance, ACA repeal because they hate poor people, but once someone points out that: 1. Your regulation fucks the poor and 2. Your regulation doesn't fix any of the problems you originally had, but you still pursue it anyways, then you either don't care about what happens to poor people or you really do want to fuck over the poor. Unless you can show me where one of these GOP congressman proposes a repeal to the ACA and a fix that would keep premiums down and not make millions lose coverage (protip: you won't find a single one).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Jfc, I can't dumb it down any more then I am. If I want to race my car down the street for fun, but hit a kid and they die, am I at fault if my intention was to never hurt the kid?

If Congress passes a law that strips millions of healthcare and raises premiums on those left behind, but I say I don't actually want to do that, am I still actually stripping millions of healthcare and raising premiums for those left behind? The answer is yes, and you probably don't care as much about the poor people as you want me to believe you do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Thunder]

How is that my ego keeping me from identifying the problems with what I want?

because you keep trying to explain to me the "you want to fuck over poor people" bit instead of acknowledging a single issue I'm raising and I'm not even giving the stance a fair representation, no doubt

You literally did not say there are problems with your proposal. You keep it at poor people getting fucked over, always. Up until the mention of "it's every solution has a drawback or con " half an hour ago

It's the most basic point that I've conceded time and time again - yes, poor people will get fucked. Yes, whoever (me, in this case if you need it to be) is behind it is "at fault" for removing the healthcare. But then you cannot go and ascribe intent to it and use that as justification for your initial "you just want poor people to get fucked"

..Does that make sense?
Flow chart, maybe;
The only reason you have to be against healthcare is because you want to fuck poors over
No there are x y z reasons why
Do your actions fuck over poors?
yes
Then your reason for being against healthcare is indeed to fuck over poors <--- er, this is not right

remember man, the whole thing this time around is that tweet is not moving the argument forward at all because it does not address any of the issues - and we're now rehashing what we did last time where I specifically came in and very specifically was raising the fact that there is reason beyond "wanting to fuck poors over" that someone might be against healthcare

[kuronosan]

Okay, I'll bite. Name the reasons.

[Thunder]

It's just up the thread a bit brother

[kuronosan]

I'm sorry, I thought you were actually going to make an argument.

Right now, that argument looks like "Hey maybe they're concerned about sustainability". Is that correct?

[Salodin]

No, what are your reasons? Because every plan put forward by those currently in power does nothing to fix the problems they admit exist with obamacare, and infact make them worse.

If it let's you sleep better, I concede that being against universal healthcare, or even for repeal of the ACA, doesn't mean you want poor people to die. But after it's laid out for you why your position, and your legislation, will kill poor people, not fix the industry, and is opposed by every person in that industry, then why are you still pursuing it?

Better yet, why do you support the gop attempt at repeal and replace-later?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk