Welcome to Titans Report

We noticed that you are viewing as a guest. Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! Best of all, members never see ads on the forum! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

OILERMAN

Republicans are starting the process to repeal Obamacare, damage to follow

198 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Insurance was failing.  That's the whole reason they came up with the ACA in the first place.  This idea that private companies can be both profit based and altruistic at the same time is disconcerting.

Either we are going to provide affordable, quality, accessible healthcare for everyone or admit that we are dicks who care more about the money than taking care of the 20% of sick people who eat up 80% of the resources.  

If we aren't dicks and we actually care about bringing costs down AND making sure everyone is takien care of then the insurance companies are the ones standing in the way of progress.

If we are dicks and we actually do care more about the money, then they need to increase competition, do away with the mandate, enable insurers and hospitals to kick away anyone who can't pay, and start killing off sick people who are beyond redemption and will never be able to pay their fare share.  

Edited by Justafan
luvyablue256 and reo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Insurance was failing.  That's the whole reason they came up with the ACA in the first place.  This idea that private companies can be both profit based and altruistic at the same time is disconcerting.

Either we are going to provide affordable, quality, accessible healthcare for everyone or admit that we are dicks who care more about the money than taking care of the 20% of sick people who eat up 80% of the resources.  

If we aren't dicks and we actually care about bringing costs down AND making sure everyone is takien care of then the insurance companies are the ones standing in the way of progress.

If we are dicks and we actually do care more about the money, then they need to increase competition, do away with the mandate, enable insurers and hospitals to kick away anyone who can't pay, and start killing off sick people who are beyond redemption and will never be able to pay their fare share.  

So, if we start treating old age for what it is, instead of a disease that can be cured, does that make us dicks?

Medical professionals seem to be convinced that we should be (continue) spending vast resources to keep people alive and thriving well beyond their realistically productive years.  Shouldn't it be okay to tell someone in their 80s that they're just worn out, instead of expecting them and their insurance to spend $60-80-100K/yr to stay active?

I have a friend whose mom is in her late 70s, and Medicare and her PI are paying out the ass to replace her knees, because they bother her after spending the day on the golf course.  Can't she limit herself to 9 holes?  Or take up swimming?

When does it become okay to tell someone that smoked for 40 years that they shouldn't expect to live past 70?  Or tell a few more people that their diet is responsible for their heart condition, not their insurance company.

We know we have an aging population in this country, and we know nothing lasts forever.  When will we start being realistic about who should bear the cost of keeping people alive beyond reasonable expectations? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats refused to work with Republicans to find ways to reduce costs.   As a result the costs keep rising and Obamacare is seen as a huge failure.   

They need to find ways to reduce costs.  Some ideas are tort reform and allowing intrastate insurance competition.    I'm sure there are more.  

Once they can start reducing costs they can compromise, and some of the parts of Obamacare that are liked can remain.   

Some of you libs think there is no way repeal and replace can work.   It can, although I don't know if our politicians are capable of doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TitanDuckFan said:

So, if we start treating old age for what it is, instead of a disease that can be cured, does that make us dicks?

Medical professionals seem to be convinced that we should be (continue) spending vast resources to keep people alive and thriving well beyond their realistically productive years.  Shouldn't it be okay to tell someone in their 80s that they're just worn out, instead of expecting them and their insurance to spend $60-80-100K/yr to stay active?

I have a friend whose mom is in her late 70s, and Medicare and her PI are paying out the ass to replace her knees, because they bother her after spending the day on the golf course.  Can't she limit herself to 9 holes?  Or take up swimming?

When does it become okay to tell someone that smoked for 40 years that they shouldn't expect to live past 70?  Or tell a few more people that their diet is responsible for their heart condition, not their insurance company.

We know we have an aging population in this country, and we know nothing lasts forever.  When will we start being realistic about who should bear the cost of keeping people alive beyond reasonable expectations? 

Ah yes, the classic Republican theory of medical care:  Just let the old fools die before they cost us more money.

And of course, the GOP would be the ones to appoint the deciders.

pamo9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Opus74 said:

Just let the old fools die before they cost us more money.

I just watched a netflix doc on this subject. They actually do need to let more people die. I wouldn't let the Republicans decide, they'd kill everyone but unborn fetus's

Downtown and Huston like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TitanDuckFan said:

So, if we start treating old age for what it is, instead of a disease that can be cured, does that make us dicks?

Medical professionals seem to be convinced that we should be (continue) spending vast resources to keep people alive and thriving well beyond their realistically productive years.  Shouldn't it be okay to tell someone in their 80s that they're just worn out, instead of expecting them and their insurance to spend $60-80-100K/yr to stay active?

I have a friend whose mom is in her late 70s, and Medicare and her PI are paying out the ass to replace her knees, because they bother her after spending the day on the golf course.  Can't she limit herself to 9 holes?  Or take up swimming?

When does it become okay to tell someone that smoked for 40 years that they shouldn't expect to live past 70?  Or tell a few more people that their diet is responsible for their heart condition, not their insurance company.

We know we have an aging population in this country, and we know nothing lasts forever.  When will we start being realistic about who should bear the cost of keeping people alive beyond reasonable expectations? 

A great question and a great debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Little Earl said:

Democrats refused to work with Republicans to find ways to reduce costs.   As a result the costs keep rising and Obamacare is seen as a huge failure.   

They need to find ways to reduce costs.  Some ideas are tort reform and allowing intrastate insurance competition.    I'm sure there are more.  

Once they can start reducing costs they can compromise, and some of the parts of Obamacare that are liked can remain.   

Some of you libs think there is no way repeal and replace can work.   It can, although I don't know if our politicians are capable of doing it.

Not saying it can't.  Saying that you have to make choices at some point and the Repubs are in a tough spot on this because no matter which way they go, they will likely piss people off.

If they can figure out a way to provide cheap, high quality healthcare that is available to everyone then I am all for it but all i've heard so far is smoke and mirrors.  I want to see the meat and potatoes of their plan.  They are going to have to learn from dems and compromise on certain issues because if they don't it will be every bit the failure and likely a larger one than Obamacare has become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TitanDuckFan said:

So, if we start treating old age for what it is, instead of a disease that can be cured, does that make us dicks?

Medical professionals seem to be convinced that we should be (continue) spending vast resources to keep people alive and thriving well beyond their realistically productive years.  Shouldn't it be okay to tell someone in their 80s that they're just worn out, instead of expecting them and their insurance to spend $60-80-100K/yr to stay active?

I have a friend whose mom is in her late 70s, and Medicare and her PI are paying out the ass to replace her knees, because they bother her after spending the day on the golf course.  Can't she limit herself to 9 holes?  Or take up swimming?

When does it become okay to tell someone that smoked for 40 years that they shouldn't expect to live past 70?  Or tell a few more people that their diet is responsible for their heart condition, not their insurance company.

We know we have an aging population in this country, and we know nothing lasts forever.  When will we start being realistic about who should bear the cost of keeping people alive beyond reasonable expectations? 

This is a good topic, although controversial. I would also argue (more controversial) that spending a million dollars to get a month or less of life out of a premature baby is a waste. The statistical odds are sometimes a 1000 to 1 that the baby will last another week.

Justafan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Opus74 said:

Ah yes, the classic Republican theory of medical care:  Just let the old fools die before they cost us more money.

And of course, the GOP would be the ones to appoint the deciders.

Hardly.  One of us is over 60 and I'll wager it isn't you.  One of us smoked for 30+ years and that likely wasn't you either.

But I came face to face with the issue when my dad, who at 79, after he smoked from age 15 to age 68, was being told by his doctor that he could be back to hunting and hiking in no time if he wanted to spend $80+K getting a hip and knee replacement.  Dad told him he was nuts, and the doc got pissed.

Go figure.

Aging isn't a disease.  Everything wears out.  Prolonging life beyond reasonable expectations is unrealistic, foolish and expensive, and too many in the medical profession are making an industry out of it.

Strait_Shooter likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TitanDuckFan said:

Through work.  But I know a couple of people that have gone through the exchange, and there story is the same.  Their deductibles have skyrocketed also.  They thought it was a decent deal in the beginning, and now they hate it.  And no matter where they look, they either have outrageous deductibles or the premiums are crazy expensive.

If you're getting your insurance through work, its extremely likely that you're just getting screwed by insurance companies (yet again) and not the ACA. Insurance Companies are the criminals here and its embarrassing that the GOP has stalled any attempts from both sides of the aisle to fix some of the glaring problems that exist because of simple legislative language errors. 

Know your enemy on this one. And ask yourself who stalled this out and prevented any attempt to make it better...

 

Btowner, Justafan, OILERMAN and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TitanDuckFan said:

So, if we start treating old age for what it is, instead of a disease that can be cured, does that make us dicks?

Medical professionals seem to be convinced that we should be (continue) spending vast resources to keep people alive and thriving well beyond their realistically productive years.  Shouldn't it be okay to tell someone in their 80s that they're just worn out, instead of expecting them and their insurance to spend $60-80-100K/yr to stay active?

I have a friend whose mom is in her late 70s, and Medicare and her PI are paying out the ass to replace her knees, because they bother her after spending the day on the golf course.  Can't she limit herself to 9 holes?  Or take up swimming?

When does it become okay to tell someone that smoked for 40 years that they shouldn't expect to live past 70?  Or tell a few more people that their diet is responsible for their heart condition, not their insurance company.

We know we have an aging population in this country, and we know nothing lasts forever.  When will we start being realistic about who should bear the cost of keeping people alive beyond reasonable expectations? 

I would assume you're pro-abortion through a lot of this reasoning...

Justafan and OILERMAN like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Downtown said:

I would assume you're pro-abortion through a lot of this reasoning...

Why?  Aging is NOT a choice.  Unless you count suicide.

You either age, or you die.  You can't have it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TitanDuckFan You're not just talking about aging in a vacuum above. You're talking about lifestyle choices negatively affecting ones health and therefore the cost of their healthcare on society. 

"Medicare and her PI are paying out the ass to replace her knees, because they bother her after spending the day on the golf course.  Can't she limit herself to 9 holes?  Or take up swimming?" -Duck

"When does it become okay to tell someone that smoked for 40 years that they shouldn't expect to live past 70?" - Duck

"When will we start being realistic about who should bear the cost of keeping people alive beyond reasonable expectations?" -Duck

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Downtown said:

@TitanDuckFan You're not just talking about aging in a vacuum above. You're talking about lifestyle choices negatively affecting ones health and therefore the cost of their healthcare on society. 

"Medicare and her PI are paying out the ass to replace her knees, because they bother her after spending the day on the golf course.  Can't she limit herself to 9 holes?  Or take up swimming?" -Duck

"When does it become okay to tell someone that smoked for 40 years that they shouldn't expect to live past 70?" - Duck

"When will we start being realistic about who should bear the cost of keeping people alive beyond reasonable expectations?" -Duck

 

Sometimes they are, and need to be factored in.  It's still a free country, or at least it's supposed to be.

Unless you're Michael Bloomberg of course, that says you can't have a soda with your hotdog at lunch.  (though the hotdogs will kill you just as quickly)

So we either address who pays for risky behavior, short term and long term, or we ban it, or we get screwed over it.

Take your pick, but addressing the issue is unavoidable. 

Beyond risky behavior, there's still choices to be made.  I don't think the taxpayer should have to pay for your knee replacement so you can play golf without discomfort in your 70s.  Golf is a choice, it's not life or death.

 

Or are you siding with Sarah Palin, in decrying "death panels" now that obama will no longer be prez?

If you don't believe there is an industry built around trying to defeat aging, you're being naive.  And lifestyle choices are only part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.