(07-19-2017 02:50 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  I'll just ask the 'board laureates' two simple questions....

why not just implement tort reform and eliminate state controlled insurers? those two alone would increase price competition across the board.....

seems pretty dayum simple to me....but I'm just the village idiot....

dem lobbyists would shite their britches if that were to happen....

congress is a shitehole across the board.....

Bismark - Pissmark......not one decision maker is talking about any of that bs.....

nat'l healthcare is the same as 5.00/gal......it's a crippler....

rant over.....

We have great health care. The biggest issue is cost. And the biggest non-value added costs are torts and insurance "fraud" (by the insurance companies delaying and denying payments). Nobody is talking about either of these issues.

(07-18-2017 04:59 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 01:21 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 01:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 12:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Yep. Put conservative judges on the bench and get rid of career politicians.

You seriously think these guys will be replaced by NON career politicians?

They may start out that way, but they will arrive at it in short order.

EVERYBODY sent up there will become a career politician. We need term limits badly, and IMO only an outsider like Trump can actually get it done. Use it as a threat for now.

How can you seriously believe this? First, congress makes law, not the president. He can't enact term limits on his own. And second, so far trump hasn't been able to lead them on anything of real meaning or substance.

But I do agree that term limits would be a good start. In absence of that, drastically slashing the amount of wealth they can create would also accomplish much of this. They need to truly become public servants. But the only thing that can accomplish this in all reality is a public that accomplishes it together. Yeah...I'm not holding my breath...

Trump hasn't been in office a year yet. Let's see how things play out 3-4 years from now.

Think about how little Obama really got done in 8 years.

Face it - the legislature really doesn't want to do anything..........

You're joking, right? If he did so little, what were you all so pissed at him for what he did?

(07-19-2017 08:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 02:50 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  I'll just ask the 'board laureates' two simple questions....

why not just implement tort reform and eliminate state controlled insurers? those two alone would increase price competition across the board.....

seems pretty dayum simple to me....but I'm just the village idiot....

dem lobbyists would shite their britches if that were to happen....

congress is a shitehole across the board.....

Bismark - Pissmark......not one decision maker is talking about any of that bs.....

nat'l healthcare is the same as 5.00/gal......it's a crippler....

rant over.....

We have great health care. The biggest issue is cost. And the biggest non-value added costs are torts and insurance "fraud" (by the insurance companies delaying and denying payments). Nobody is talking about either of these issues.

it will be termed as the "great wealth siphon" by the time it finally collapses....

(07-19-2017 08:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:59 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Trump hasn't been in office a year yet. Let's see how things play out 3-4 years from now.
Think about how little Obama really got done in 8 years.
Face it - the legislature really doesn't want to do anything..........

You're joking, right? If he did so little, what were you all so pissed at him for what he did?

He did very little, but what he did was bad. We can all be thankful that he was too incompetent to get much done. A truly capable leader with Obama's agenda could have destroyed all that is good about this country.

Outside of Obamacare, what truly meaningful legislation did Obama get passed?

And I believe that Obamacare is truly one of the most destructive pieces of legislation to ever be passed in the modern era.

The people of the United States DID NOT want it. The people of MASSACHUSETS voted for a REPUBLICAN in order to try and stop this from passing. After it passed in spite of all the public opposition, the Democratic Party was destroyed in 2010. A Supreme Court judge was bullied into changing is ruling to keep the toxic legislation from being deemed unconstitutional, permanently politicizing the court for at least a generation. And while the GOP foolishly ran the Monopoly Man in 2012, who did NOTHING to take advantage of the anti Obamacare unity, the GOP remained united against it and it destroyed any meaningful chance for Obama to have any significant legislation in his 2nd term. 2014 and 2016 were both "YUUUGE" GOP gains, in MAJOR part because people hated Obamacare. The law was failing, promises were not kept, and the public sentiment was one of unrest. And now the very same law that united the GOP is tearing it apart because they cannot agree on the proper way to get rid of it while some more reasonable Democrats are now finally beginning to admit the damage it has done to the party and are wanting to make leadership changes to avoid this kind of action in the future.

So in summary: Obamacare has destroyed 2 major political parties, tarnished the Supreme Court permanently, and completely handicapped the previous president after its passing.

Was it worth it?

(07-18-2017 09:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:25 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:17 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 07:21 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 04:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Thank you! For all the people who support single-payer, we can show them the trouble Canada has with wait times: 90ish days for diagnostic imaging in Ontario. We can get a realistic scenario of the implementation and the likely events to happen due to the difficulties of said implementation.

I have a feeling that the hearings would never be filtered to the citizens accurately though. CSPAN would have the only accurate coverage.

Bismarck IS single-payer. Why the Bismarck supporters, except Fo, deny this is beyond me.

After actually doing some further looking at Bismarck systems and how they work?... I have come to the conclusion ...it is multi payer...not single payer. It has a wide variety of options available to the consumer. Calling it single payer is inaccurate. Owl did a primer on Bismarck in another thread. It spurred me to do some research on my on. He synopsis was pretty accurate from what I found.

Except it is accurate. The base plan is single-payer and everything I've read here and elsewhere states that plainly. You give this government a defacto single payer like Bismarck and you can say bye bye to Bismarck. You know this, Owl sure as sh*t knows this and I know this. The only thing is, I'm man enough to admit that any form of Bismarck will be stripped to it's base by this government and that base is single payer. You can forget all that multi payer garbage you're posting about, any chance the government gets to control your life 100% they take it.

Nope. Do as I did and do some research. I also thought it was single payer for basic care. The problem with all of this is NO ONE in Washington has mentioned Bismarck a SINGLE fcking time to my knowledge. It looks to be as irrelevant as other things like consumption taxes...that make sense and are being used successfully all over the world. I am beginning to believe there is purposeful reason we are mired in this BS. There are powerful people, businesses and entities that will not allow change because they profit handsomely from the current paradigm. That is the logical conclusion.

I did some research and you are wrong. Bismarck IS single payer, you even said so yourself. So either you were lying then or your lying now. Now before you hurl your usual insults in my direction some of my research came from here. Specifically you, Owl #'s and one other. Probably Hambone, but I could be wrong on that. Everything you 2 have posted I went to check elsewhere and do you know what I found? That the base plan for Bismarck IS single-payer. So somebody's lying.

(07-18-2017 10:07 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 10:02 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Wasting your time Fo. He doesn't believe any of the truth of flat/fair tax either. It's a new tax added on top of everything we already pay.

Sadly...It really is a waste of time to talk about. No one in power will allow any of this stuff to happen. At some level these things are a threat to them. It will take a giant grass roots uprising to get their attention. I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

nm

(07-19-2017 09:12 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Outside of Obamacare, what truly meaningful legislation did Obama get passed?

And I believe that Obamacare is truly one of the most destructive pieces of legislation to ever be passed in the modern era.

The people of the United States DID NOT want it. The people of MASSACHUSETS voted for a REPUBLICAN in order to try and stop this from passing. After it passed in spite of all the public opposition, the Democratic Party was destroyed in 2010. A Supreme Court judge was bullied into changing is ruling to keep the toxic legislation from being deemed unconstitutional, permanently politicizing the court for at least a generation. And while the GOP foolishly ran the Monopoly Man in 2012, who did NOTHING to take advantage of the anti Obamacare unity, the GOP remained united against it and it destroyed any meaningful chance for Obama to have any significant legislation in his 2nd term. 2014 and 2016 were both "YUUUGE" GOP gains, in MAJOR part because people hated Obamacare. The law was failing, promises were not kept, and the public sentiment was one of unrest. And now the very same law that united the GOP is tearing it apart because they cannot agree on the proper way to get rid of it while some more reasonable Democrats are now finally beginning to admit the damage it has done to the party and are wanting to make leadership changes to avoid this kind of action in the future.

So in summary: Obamacare has destroyed 2 major political parties, tarnished the Supreme Court permanently, and completely handicapped the previous president after its passing.

Was it worth it?

and was done all to get this to stuff the ballot box....

(07-19-2017 10:13 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:25 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:17 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 07:21 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Bismarck IS single-payer. Why the Bismarck supporters, except Fo, deny this is beyond me.

After actually doing some further looking at Bismarck systems and how they work?... I have come to the conclusion ...it is multi payer...not single payer. It has a wide variety of options available to the consumer. Calling it single payer is inaccurate. Owl did a primer on Bismarck in another thread. It spurred me to do some research on my on. He synopsis was pretty accurate from what I found.

Except it is accurate. The base plan is single-payer and everything I've read here and elsewhere states that plainly. You give this government a defacto single payer like Bismarck and you can say bye bye to Bismarck. You know this, Owl sure as sh*t knows this and I know this. The only thing is, I'm man enough to admit that any form of Bismarck will be stripped to it's base by this government and that base is single payer. You can forget all that multi payer garbage you're posting about, any chance the government gets to control your life 100% they take it.

Nope. Do as I did and do some research. I also thought it was single payer for basic care. The problem with all of this is NO ONE in Washington has mentioned Bismarck a SINGLE fcking time to my knowledge. It looks to be as irrelevant as other things like consumption taxes...that make sense and are being used successfully all over the world. I am beginning to believe there is purposeful reason we are mired in this BS. There are powerful people, businesses and entities that will not allow change because they profit handsomely from the current paradigm. That is the logical conclusion.

I did some research and you are wrong. Bismarck IS single payer, you even said so yourself. So either you were lying then or your lying now. Now before you hurl your usual insults in my direction some of my research came from here. Specifically you, Owl #'s and one other. Probably Hambone, but I could be wrong on that. Everything you 2 have posted I went to check elsewhere and do you know what I found? That the base plan for Bismarck IS single-payer. So somebody's lying.

"Although this is a multi-payer model -- Germany has about 240 different funds..."

(07-19-2017 01:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:13 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:25 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 09:17 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  After actually doing some further looking at Bismarck systems and how they work?... I have come to the conclusion ...it is multi payer...not single payer. It has a wide variety of options available to the consumer. Calling it single payer is inaccurate. Owl did a primer on Bismarck in another thread. It spurred me to do some research on my on. He synopsis was pretty accurate from what I found.

Except it is accurate. The base plan is single-payer and everything I've read here and elsewhere states that plainly. You give this government a defacto single payer like Bismarck and you can say bye bye to Bismarck. You know this, Owl sure as sh*t knows this and I know this. The only thing is, I'm man enough to admit that any form of Bismarck will be stripped to it's base by this government and that base is single payer. You can forget all that multi payer garbage you're posting about, any chance the government gets to control your life 100% they take it.

Nope. Do as I did and do some research. I also thought it was single payer for basic care. The problem with all of this is NO ONE in Washington has mentioned Bismarck a SINGLE fcking time to my knowledge. It looks to be as irrelevant as other things like consumption taxes...that make sense and are being used successfully all over the world. I am beginning to believe there is purposeful reason we are mired in this BS. There are powerful people, businesses and entities that will not allow change because they profit handsomely from the current paradigm. That is the logical conclusion.

I did some research and you are wrong. Bismarck IS single payer, you even said so yourself. So either you were lying then or your lying now. Now before you hurl your usual insults in my direction some of my research came from here. Specifically you, Owl #'s and one other. Probably Hambone, but I could be wrong on that. Everything you 2 have posted I went to check elsewhere and do you know what I found? That the base plan for Bismarck IS single-payer. So somebody's lying.

"Although this is a multi-payer model -- Germany has about 240 different funds..."

Japan has over 3,500 payers.

Another link says Germany's base plan is "paid for, in part, by more than 1,000 public or private" funds.

(07-19-2017 10:13 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I did some research and you are wrong. Bismarck IS single payer,

No, it isn't. It's universal, which you seem to be confusing with single-payer, but all Bismarck systems are multi-payer and multi-provider.

Quote:you even said so yourself.

Where?

Quote:So either you were lying then or your lying now. Now before you hurl your usual insults in my direction some of my research came from here. Specifically you, Owl #'s and one other.

Exactly what did I say that you interpreted as meaning that Bismarck was single-payer? I'd really be interested in knowing this.

Quote:Probably Hambone, but I could be wrong on that. Everything you 2 have posted I went to check elsewhere and do you know what I found? That the base plan for Bismarck IS single-payer. So somebody's lying.

You are.

His research skills are sorely lacking.