Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

I was clarifying that an illegal immigrant who shows up at a hospital in need of care should not be turned away. That's not nonsense, it's my opinion.

---

Good for you. That doesn't happen at all with the current private system: Public and private hospitals alike are prohibited by law from denying a patient care in an emergency. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay. https://law.freeadvice.com/malpracti...l-patients.htm

But go ahead and instill that fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

Private insurance companies have bought and paid for the politicians countless times over. It's why everyone talks about how we need to drastically change our health care system while proposing absolutely nothing to really change a damn thing.

Listen, I will give you an example of how things have changed since my company got acquired and you tell me why your health insurance is so expensive.

Before my company got acquired, I could ship a computer (I work in IT) to an employee and get it there the next day for $30-50. Now that we're using the bigger company's systems (I will not post the name but I guarantee you ALL know them), the same procedure costs $150. They are about 100 times as many employees and they have a substantially higher bargaining power and they don't bother doing so.

---

I used to work in the health care industry and the waste, the red tape, and the systemic obfuscation of cost from the users were all extreme and rife in the system. Since Obamacare was signed it got MUCH worse.

Speaking of regulation screwing Americans ... the FDA's efforts to make sure nobody is hurt by drugs has always failed, and now the average drug costs $3B to get FDA approval, and since the 60s when the FDA got started toward this level of regulatory control the number of drugs approved have dropped quickly and consistently. That extreme cost of R&D and the FDAs likelihood of having it end up being wasted money is a principle reason medications are so expensive.

Also on the "benefits" of health insurance ... when Obamacare was proposed the law was 1/10th as long and the insurance industry HATED it (the health care providers liked it). Over the course of the first 9 months of Obama's presidency the law grew and changed and suddenly the insurance industry loved it. From that moment, when the insurance industry knew what rules they would be working under they started pushing up the cost of insurance as quick as they could, so when Obamacare became law years later we were all used to paying 30 to 50% more for our health insurance.

Health insurance providers don't do ANYTHING for you, they are money men and gate keepers on your health care, and they want you to thank them for it. Why anyone would want to put a layer of crap between themselves and a product they need is amazing to me, let alone that it's a system based on gambling ... and there is never anything corrupt with gambling right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo

Completely understand. It's a very cumbersome industry. However, do you really think those numbers would go south if the private insurance industry was abolished? Please keep in mind that you'd be using union or negotiated private contracts for administration and delivery.

The most effective and intentional lie to ever come out of a sitting President's mouth was: It will cost you less and you can keep your preferred healthcare provider.

---

I didn't say anything about doing anything to the health care providers, just the INSURANCE portion of it. I wasn't talking about union negotiated contracts for administration and delivery. This is why I asked you to read what I had proposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo

Good for you. That doesn't happen at all with the current private system: Public and private hospitals alike are prohibited by law from denying a patient care in an emergency. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay. https://law.freeadvice.com/malpracti...l-patients.htm

But go ahead and instill that fear.

---

I didn't instill that fear. I was saying I didn't want that to start happening with a system where the government was the emergency payer. In the immigration reform thread I said that I was for illegal immigrants to expect to be deported when they tried to get government services, so I was trying to clarify that in this case they should get the care they need THEN get deported. Do you actually disagree with that position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo

Then WTF are you trying to change? I've seen all of these fairytales about the healthcare industry, and nothing subsequently after abolishment makes sense.

Honestly, what am I missing? Or is this simply a game of hit the gofer on the head as many times as you can and hope that one of them will talk to you and share the light.

---

I have no idea what you mean here.

If the government really wanted to take care of their citizens by paying for healthcare, they could, without becoming the insurance provider. There is no legitimate reason, the government couldn’t give people a 100% reimbursement of healthcare coverage on your taxes. That way, people still get to choose their coverage. Insurance companies stay in competition. Wealthy people, who most likely have their coverage paid for by their employer, would get nothing. Actually the only reason for the government to become a healthcare provider is control of citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenny Powders

Remember that time she said windmills cause cancer. What a dumb broad

---

there is no need to get defensive and bring up something that Trump said. especially when I was the first one to say this wind comment was stupid. there have been plenty of evidence to support the stupid things AOC has said.

the comments objecting to this video are also comical. this is like totally like the way AOC like would talk.
I think it would also be funny to see a kid doing parody of Donald Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

If the government really wanted to take care of their citizens by paying for healthcare, they could, without becoming the insurance provider. There is no legitimate reason, the government couldn’t give people a 100% reimbursement of healthcare coverage on your taxes. That way, people still get to choose their coverage. Insurance companies stay in competition. Wealthy people, who most likely have their coverage paid for by their employer, would get nothing. Actually the only reason for the government to become a healthcare provider is control of citizens.

---

Why would people shop for coverage and not just go to the most expensive every time?

And companies would instantly stop offering health insurance benefits if the government is willing to pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

Why would people shop for coverage and not just go to the most expensive every time?

And companies would instantly stop offering health insurance benefits if the government is willing to pay for it.

---

Because they still would have to pay for it during the year.

Companies would still offer healthcare benefits as an incentive. They prefer to pay for healthcare vs wages. The government would only cover the individuals portion, which usually is deducted from a paycheck or paid out of pocket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

Anything past $0 the government pays.

---

is your contribution to the savings account a percentage of salary? Any max limits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

If the government really wanted to take care of their citizens by paying for healthcare, they could, without becoming the insurance provider. There is no legitimate reason, the government couldn’t give people a 100% reimbursement of healthcare coverage on your taxes. That way, people still get to choose their coverage. Insurance companies stay in competition. Wealthy people, who most likely have their coverage paid for by their employer, would get nothing. Actually the only reason for the government to become a healthcare provider is control of citizens.

---

your paranoia has intensified


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

your paranoia has intensified


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Suggesting that liberals are solely motivated by power and control is not paranoia. I might be projecting. But it’s mainly just me drawing my own conclusion to their flawed proposals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

If the government really wanted to take care of their citizens by paying for healthcare, they could, without becoming the insurance provider. There is no legitimate reason, the government couldn’t give people a 100% reimbursement of healthcare coverage on your taxes. That way, people still get to choose their coverage. Insurance companies stay in competition. Wealthy people, who most likely have their coverage paid for by their employer, would get nothing. Actually the only reason for the government to become a healthcare provider is control of citizens.

---

Congrats your plan just eliminated all employer based coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

Congrats your plan just eliminated all employer based coverage.

---

Why? Employers will still seek to offer health care coverage as an incentive. Employers would prefer to offer something they can attempt to control or lower costs instead of applying raises to wages. In other words, as companies grow and add more employees, healthcare coverage can drop in cost. If they didn’t offer coverage and instead offered more salary, they would have to apply raise percentages to the higher salaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Why? Employers will still seek to offer health care coverage as an incentive. Employers would prefer to offer something they can attempt to control or lower costs instead of applying raises to wages. In other words, as companies grow and add more employees, healthcare coverage can drop in cost. If they didn’t offer coverage and instead offered more salary, they would have to apply raise percentages to the higher salaries.

---

If you can only deduct the costs as an individual, then businesses will stop providing the benefit. So the person will be stuck with that responsibility. The incentives you would create will react quickly.