We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

TrumpCare


  • Please log in to reply
278 replies to this topic

#1 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,136 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted Yesterday, 07:55 PM



"The Congressional Budget Office and related government agencies scored the cost of a single-payer health care system several times since 1991. The General Accounting Office published a report in 1991 noting that "[I]f the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."[56]

The CBO scored the cost in 1991, noting that "the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health" and that "all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured."[57].......

 

https://en.wikipedia...s_and_proposals

 

And from what I hear lots of Americans pay outrageous amounts to insurance companies for coverage.  Save that money and raise taxes just a little and everyone could be covered.  Every civilized nation in the world does it except America.  The absence of worry alone will extend life expectancies.


  • mr6666, Arturo and film lover 293 like this

#2 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,574 posts

Posted Yesterday, 04:02 PM

"The Congressional Budget Office and related government agencies scored the cost of a single-payer health care system several times since 1991. The General Accounting Office published a report in 1991 noting that "[I]f the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."[56]

The CBO scored the cost in 1991, noting that "the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health" and that "all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured."[57].......

 

https://en.wikipedia...s_and_proposals


  • Arturo, Bogie56 and LawrenceA like this

"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#3 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,313 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted Yesterday, 02:42 PM

Well, to play devil's advocate, I'll state that the US is larger than most countries with single-payer. Also, as Hamradio mentioned, without some kind of adjustment to medical costs, the price tag would be astronomical . And finally, as many studies have shown over the past decade, Americans are generally in poorer health, not just due to lack of healthcare, but lack of exercise, dietary habits, etc.

 

Single payer would be enormously expensive, and it would require a real shift in the way things are done in the US The defense budget would have to go way down, taxation would have to go up a lot for many people, and there would most likely be an overhaul of the entire medical field, from top to bottom. I don't know when or if most Americans would be willing for any of that to happen, let alone the powerful lobbyists.

I searched a little, but could not come up with a good reference for how much it would actually cost for a single-payer system in US.

 

Below is a Washington Post editorial in which they cite one estimate that it would cost $32 Trillion over 10 years.  While that may be true, what about offsets with revenue from people covered, physicians, hospitals, employers, etc.?

/www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/single-payer-health-care-would-have-an-astonishingly-high-price-tag/2017/06/18/9c70dae6-52d2-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html?utm_term=.4e481c2db085

 

One aspect is that the federal government already provides substantial medical coverage for employees, military and dependents, military retirees and dependents, VA, USPHS, and many others.  Not to mention that provided by state and local governments and school systems.

 

I still believe the answer is a truly bi-partisan commission to do an 18-24 month study with all stakeholders involved.



#4 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Caretaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,455 posts
  • LocationThe Overlook Hotel

Posted Yesterday, 01:25 PM

Trump says Single Payer will bankrupt America.  How is that so when much poorer countries can afford it?  Maybe when you put it on top of the wall the military budget and slashes to taxes for the billionaires, but really ...?

 

Well, to play devil's advocate, I'll state that the US is larger than most countries with single-payer. Also, as Hamradio mentioned, without some kind of adjustment to medical costs, the price tag would be astronomical . And finally, as many studies have shown over the past decade, Americans are generally in poorer health, not just due to lack of healthcare, but lack of exercise, dietary habits, etc.

 

Single payer would be enormously expensive, and it would require a real shift in the way things are done in the US The defense budget would have to go way down, taxation would have to go up a lot for many people, and there would most likely be an overhaul of the entire medical field, from top to bottom. I don't know when or if most Americans would be willing for any of that to happen, let alone the powerful lobbyists.



#5 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,136 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted Yesterday, 01:04 PM

Trump says Single Payer will bankrupt America.  How is that so when much poorer countries can afford it?  Maybe when you put it on top of the wall the military budget and slashes to taxes for the billionaires, but really ...?


  • Arturo likes this

#6 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,529 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:17 PM

Fair enough.   But with regards to the mandate;   so what should happen if someone that decides to NOT have health insurance,  has medical issues they cannot afford to pay for on a fee-for-service basis?   Should they get treatment?    

 

If YES,   isn't that unfair to all those that do pay into the system?     Isn't a no mandate policy just a supporting deadbeat policy?    I can see a wavier for the mandate if one maintains 200K in cash in an escrow account,  but if there is NO mandate, then those without insurance should receive NO treatments.      The GOP being the party of the capitalist should agree with this.      Why should privately owned hospitals be FORCED by law to treat those that have no insurance or ability to pay.   THAT is socialism and much more socialist IMO than a mandate.

 

If a person can afford insurance and decide not to, the cost should come out of pocket.  What about people that don't believe in modern medicine (religious beliefs - herbal treatment, etc)

 

For sake of argument, if I decide not to have insurance, the hospital has the right to turn me away - I'm willing to sign such a waiver relieving them of legal responsibility.  I will not live my final years on breathing machines, countless drugs - will let nature take its course.  This is MY choice.

 

The other problem is people in the VERY LOW INCOME bracket are penalized by the mandate. They can least afford it.  There are and have been free medical clinics for the poor, such clinics need to check their monthly income to insure well off  people that can afford medical care don't cheat the system.

 

The government is still not addressing the high cost of medical treatment, drugs - this is the root of the evil.  The hospital bill shouldn't be $1,000 for a band aid.  



#7 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,374 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted Yesterday, 11:50 AM

My stance was and still is to fix ACA not replace. I've stated repeatedly it has both good and bad qualities. My main gripe is the mandate, right to choose doctors / insurance or not and the burden on small business to provide coverage for employees.  Many has closed because of it.

 

Repealing ACA now will be disastrous.

 

Fair enough.   But with regards to the mandate;   so what should happen if someone that decides to NOT have health insurance,  has medical issues they cannot afford to pay for on a fee-for-service basis?   Should they get treatment?    

 

If YES,   isn't that unfair to all those that do pay into the system?     Isn't a no mandate policy just a supporting deadbeat policy?    I can see a wavier for the mandate if one maintains 200K in cash in an escrow account,  but if there is NO mandate, then those without insurance should receive NO treatments.      The GOP being the party of the capitalist should agree with this.      Why should privately owned hospitals be FORCED by law to treat those that have no insurance or ability to pay.   THAT is socialism and much more socialist IMO than a mandate.



#8 Princess of Tap

Princess of Tap

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,725 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:28 AM

He is probably using the coverage he earned by his military service.



Or maybe he's got the coverage from the insurance of his millionaire wife.

#9 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,912 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted Yesterday, 08:24 AM

I hafta fault donny here a tad...even though I doan wanna. :D

 

he just oughta give up wasting his time trying to show a schtootz GOP how to fight like men. they love being schtootzes more. murkowski and collins are dam lucky he hasn't tweet-blasted them for their rino-ism.

 

here's what I would do in donny's shoes. call in the democrats and say to 'em....

 

"alright, we're gonna work with you foul-ups on repairing obamacare but I have but one single condition...

you're not, any of ya!, to publically comment on this in any political way whatsoever except to compliment the GOP for their bipartisanship. in other words, fellas, no BS!

 

you do that and we are all friends again! :D 

 

if the answers no then get the hell outta here!"

 

:)


"okay, so we're moving right along, folks" -al pacino, dog day afternoon


#10 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,313 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted Yesterday, 08:12 AM

 

 

45]David Corn‏Verified account @DavidCornDC
Well, at least John McCain doesn't have to rush back. He can take good care of himself & enjoy his government-provided health insurance.

 

He is probably using the coverage he earned by his military service.



#11 Princess of Tap

Princess of Tap

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,725 posts

Posted Yesterday, 04:26 AM


45]K9GgLuad_bigger.pngDavid CornVerified account @DavidCornDC


More



Well, at least John McCain doesn't have to rush back. He can take good care of himself & enjoy his government-provided health insurance.

  • mr6666, Arturo and ChristineHoard like this

#12 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,529 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 11:42 PM

Right on, TomJH, but we know his supporters will stand by him no matter what. They don't want to admit they may have made a mistake, even if it costs them healthcare, a cleaner environment, etc.  They see an outsider who wants to shake things up and the press and establishment are against him.  I just saw a poll on TV where like 25-30% of Trump voters don't even believe there was a meeting with Donny Junior and the Russian lawyer et al even though both Donny Jr. and Sr. admitted it.  Every poll, interviews with Trump supporters on TV, some of our fellow posters here, shows this to be sadly true.  

 

My stance was and still is to fix ACA not replace. I've stated repeatedly it has both good and bad qualities. My main gripe is the mandate, right to choose doctors / insurance or not and the burden on small business to provide coverage for employees.  Many has closed because of it.

 

Repealing ACA now will be disastrous.



#13 Arturo

Arturo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,060 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 11:22 PM

and when the aca is on the verge of obvious destruction months from now the democrats will come crawling to trump...

not because they want to but because their constuents will have finally woken up and realized that it was always donny's game from the beginning.

donny would rather not wait BUT IF THEY INSIST...okay. :)

Actually, the Resistance to repeal/replace included many Trump supporters, who some three years later, have realized its benefits to them, and don't that taken away.

Trump LOST big-time here. He has done nothing to help it along, choosing to be at a tournament on the last crucial days here. Where is the "Great Negotiator?" Not twisting arms or wooing recalcitrant GOP senators, but basically tweeting about the tournament. NO LEADERSHIP WHATSOEVER from your so called "leader". He has realized how hard his new position is, is showing no aptitude for it nor willingness to learn. He is temperamentally unsuited for it, and between bouts of boredom and rage, is wishing he was elsewhere. And for once, the large majority of Americans agree with this.

Yes Donald, YOU OWN THIS LOSS!
  • mr6666, TheCid, TomJH and 1 other like this

#14 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,788 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 18 July 2017 - 10:16 PM

Big O--1

 

Donny MAGA--0

Loser.


  • Arturo and TheCid like this

Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#15 ChristineHoard

ChristineHoard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 912 posts
  • LocationGA

Posted 18 July 2017 - 08:53 PM

Right on, TomJH, but we know his supporters will stand by him no matter what. They don't want to admit they may have made a mistake, even if it costs them healthcare, a cleaner environment, etc.  They see an outsider who wants to shake things up and the press and establishment are against him.  I just saw a poll on TV where like 25-30% of Trump voters don't even believe there was a meeting with Donny Junior and the Russian lawyer et al even though both Donny Jr. and Sr. admitted it.  Every poll, interviews with Trump supporters on TV, some of our fellow posters here, shows this to be sadly true.  


  • mr6666 and TheCid like this

#16 TomJH

TomJH

    I know what gold does to men's souls.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,656 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 08:23 PM

"Let Obamacare fail, it will be a lot easier. And I think we're probably in that position where we'll just let Obamacare fail. We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. We'll let Obamacare fail and then the Democrats are going to come to us."

 

With those words Donald (The Buck Doesn't Stop Here) Trump has shown his true colours once again.

 

To allow Obamacare to fail means that even more people won't be able to afford the increasing premiums. It means people will suffer, people will die.

 

But let it be on the Democrats' heads! Let them own it! - that is Trump's political obsession, to hell with the fact that it is his responsibility as President is to preserve, or replace, improve the nation's health care system.

 

Just so long as Trump (who went to a golf course for two days while Mitch O'Connell was trying to get the votes for TrumpCare in the Senate) doesn't get the blame for it (he hopes) - that's his priority.

 

Not only is the statement from a President, any President, to allow a nation's health care system to self destruct (for, he hopes, his own political gain) a reprehensible dereliction of duty but it is immoral. You do not sit back, do nothing and let citizens of your nation suffer and die.

 

Trump supporters did not elect this man to see him stand by and allow health care to die when divisions within his own party, which rules both the House and Senate, fail to come up with a solution.

 

It does not look like Republicans will get enough votes next week to just repeal ObamaCare so Trump will probably not get his way. But once again he revealed his true character for all to see, and it was ugly (this coming, ironically, from the President who had complained that the House health bill had been "mean").

 

How many times do Trump followers, so blind in their loyalty to him, have to see the obvious before even they start to realize the truth -

 

Donald Trump needs you politically but, as a man, he doesn't give a damn about you or your suffering. He couldn't have spelled it out more clearly than in his statement today about letting ObamaCare die.


  • mr6666, Arturo, Bogie56 and 2 others like this

#17 ChristineHoard

ChristineHoard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 912 posts
  • LocationGA

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:27 PM

This is what happens when you freeze women out of the political process concerning an issue that affects them:  no Republican women invited to McConnell's secret panel about ACA repeal/replace or just repeal-and-maybe-we'll-replace-later-when-we-can-get-to-it and it's three Republican women who shut the whole thing down (for now).  Is it irony?  Is it poetic justice?  Whatever, it's three people who care about how healthcare affects their constituents and they happen to be Republican women whose party usually treats like s***.  HOORAY!


  • mr6666, Arturo, LawrenceA and 1 other like this

#18 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,374 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 18 July 2017 - 02:19 PM

Update from Politico.com, at 2:47 p.m.  Repeal, replace later has Rep. Senators Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Shelley Capito (West Virginia) officially on record against it.  Sen. McConnell (KY) plans to hold a vote anyway later this week, to get votes on the record; IF these Senators hold their ground, the move to repeal ObamaCare is DEAD--for now.

 

From a political perspective these GOP Senators will face tough challenges in their next GOP primary.   E.g.  money will come from around the nation to ensure the GOP primary winner is farther too the right than them.     That's too bad for these GOP members who put country \ state before party,  but it might lead to a moderate Dem candidate winning that seat.


  • Arturo and film lover 293 like this

#19 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,912 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted 18 July 2017 - 02:09 PM

Update from Politico.com, at 2:47 p.m.  Repeal, replace later has Rep. Senators Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Shelley Capito (West Virginia) officially on record against it.  Sen. McConnell (KY) plans to hold a vote anyway later this week, to get votes on the record; IF these Senators hold their ground, the move to repeal ObamaCare is DEAD--for now.

and when the aca is on the verge of obvious destruction months from now the democrats will come crawling to trump...

 

not because they want to but because their constuents will have finally woken up and realized that it was always donny's game from the beginning.

 

donny would rather not wait BUT IF THEY INSIST...okay. :)


"okay, so we're moving right along, folks" -al pacino, dog day afternoon


#20 film lover 293

film lover 293

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,695 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 02:05 PM

Update from Politico.com, at 2:47 p.m.  Repeal, replace later has Rep. Senators Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Shelley Capito (West Virginia) officially on record against it.  Sen. McConnell (KY) plans to hold a vote anyway later this week, to get votes on the record; IF these Senators hold their ground, the move to repeal ObamaCare is DEAD--for now.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users