Welcome to Thunderdome

Vince wrote:

Leisher wrote:It's also down to one insurer, whatever that means for the long term?

Eventually... single payer.

Doubt it. The very mechanism of 'health insurance' is incompatible with the program's goal of covering the people who need it -- insurers stay afloat by collecting constantly and paying out occasionally, not the other way around.

I would guess that the ACA will collapse and the system will regress. Unless we somehow get over our fear of nationalizing private corporations.

It's going to be nationalized in our lifetimes*, I guarantee it.

* - Around 20 years is my guesstimate, but could be sooner.

Unless we somehow get over our fear of nationalizing private corporations.

Why do we want that to happen?

Leisher wrote:

Unless we somehow get over our fear of nationalizing private corporations.

Why do we want that to happen?

To get single-payer healthcare.

Alhazad wrote:

Leisher wrote:

Unless we somehow get over our fear of nationalizing private corporations.

Why do we want that to happen?

To get single-payer healthcare.

And why do we want that?

The final solution will be the intersection of this thread with this other thread. Right now healthcare is still a limited resource and no matter how you slice it some people will do without. When most of healthcare can be provided without human labor, only then will there be enough of it for everyone and a workable system will arise. Probably single-payer in nature.

Leisher wrote:

Alhazad wrote:

Leisher wrote:
Why do we want that to happen?

To get single-payer healthcare.

And why do we want that?

Because it's good. Don't you read the news?

Weren't you the one who said only morons get their information from the media?

Alhazad wrote:

Leisher wrote:

Alhazad wrote: To get single-payer healthcare.

And why do we want that?

Because it's good. Don't you read the news?

To be fair, it's good in your opinion.

Other people don't think it's good.

I keep hearing all the time about how awesome it would be if the government were in control of healthcare, and I look around the world at other countries doing it, and it's not awesome. I look at our government's track record of running anything, and it's pretty shitty. Monumentally shitty. I can't even do an analogy about "if they were a business" because it's inconceivable that any business could be run as badly and survive a single year, let alone 200+.

And let's not forget that we already have nationalized health care, it's for veterans and it's not even good enough to be called "bad".

The VA is an example of US government-run health care, and because it is shitty the "single payer" people keep saying "Yeah but that isn't a good example of how it will really be."

GORDON wrote:The VA is an example of US government-run health care, and because it is shitty the "single payer" people keep saying "Yeah but that isn't a good example of how it will really be."

Exactly. There's zero logic in their argument.

Government run healthcare will be awesome!
We already have it for veterans and it's beyond terrible.
Well yeah, but that's not how healthcare for everyone else will be run...

Really? We can't even give good healthcare to a small percentage of citizens willing to put their lives on the line to keep the asshats in charge in power, yet you really think they'll give great healthcare to people living off the government's tit?

Health care on Indian reservations isn't so hot either.

GORDON wrote:Weren't you the one who said only morons get their information from the media?

Indeed. How about that?

How about what? You said two conflicting things.

One of them was facetious.

EDIT: Actually, it's possible both of them were. I can't even remember the older one anymore.

Alhazad wrote:One of them was facetious.

EDIT: Actually, it's possible both of them were. I can't even remember the older one anymore.

Ah.

Because I remember wanting to argue when you first said it about how you must go and talk to a lot of primary sources, facetiously, but then I realized I didn't give a fuck enough about your political views to make the effort.

No offense. I don't give a fuck about anyones political views beyond feeling sorry for those who are afflicted with them.

Personally I just presume most of what is said here is facetious, unless there is an indication within the conversation that it is in fact meant seriously.

Lord knows most of what I say is bullshit.

Obama: I knew people were angry, I just did NOT A GOD DAMNED THING ABOUT IT.

People seem to think that I did a pretty good job, so there is this mismatch between frustration and anger, and perhaps the view of the American people was just needing to shake things up," he said.

Do they?

Let me just throw this out there:
The same people who polled that Hillary was going to win in a landslide did the polls regarding your popularity and how people feel about your presidency...

To be fair, the polling was actually pretty accurate for the most part. It was the analysis of the polling that was off. Much like Brexit. People were all shocked by it, but the polling on Brexit was split pretty evenly. It was the betting sites and the analysis of the polls that said it wasn't going to happen. Also, the conventional wisdom gave Hillary a point or two because she had invested as much as she did in local offices and ground organization.

Hillary's biggest obstacle to overcome was being Hillary. And that was just too much for her.