So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

[ProfX]

I don't believe the Post Office is there, per se, to "compete" with UPS and FedEx. I believe it exists as a public service to the people of this country, and in turn because of its nature offers some things they don't.

I don't believe public busses are there to compete with private jitneys and tour busses. They are there to provide a public transit function.

Public parks are not competing with private parks and tourist attractions. Same deal.

A public option in health care would be like all these other things - an "option". If many people opt for it, who knows, it might force private insurers to rethink the way they do business.

I see that as a good thing.

Ted and I agree. Let's see how it plays out. In 50 states. Try it. If it's a disaster, end it. (I suspect it won't be.)

And with that, I'll wait for Joe to tell me California must try it first. Because I'm psychic, I know he will.

[gounion]

The government is not and should not be in the business to compete with private companies. Where does that end. What industry is next. Governments job is to regulate the markets. It should stay in its own lane.

Oh? Then why do you support Medicare?

[Libertas]

I don't believe the Post Office is there, per se, to "compete" with UPS and FedEx. I believe it exists as a public service to the people of this country, and in turn because of its nature offers some things they don't.

I don't believe public busses are there to compete with private jitneys and tour busses. They are there to provide a public transit function.

Public parks are not competing with private parks and tourist attractions. Same deal.

A public option in health care would be like all these other things - an "option". If many people opt for it, who knows, it might force private insurers to rethink the way they do business.

I see that as a good thing.

Ted and I agree. Let's see how it plays out. In 50 states. Try it. If it's a disaster, end it. (I suspect it won't be.)

And with that, I'll wait for Joe to tell me California must try it first. Because I'm psychic, I know he will.

I can tell you from someone who knows about this stuff that the public option is the for-profit insurance industry’s biggest fear and they will do everything to stop it.

[gounion]

I can tell you from someone who knows about this stuff that the public option is the for-profit insurance industry’s biggest fear and they will do everything to stop it.

Joe is completely full of shit. He talks about choice and competition, but he doesn't mean it. He doesn't want people to have the option of buying into Medicare. He's scared shitless of that choice.

[JoeMemphis]

I don't believe the Post Office is there, per se, to "compete" with UPS and FedEx. I believe it exists as a public service to the people of this country, and in turn because of its nature offers some things they don't.

I don't believe public busses are there to compete with private jitneys and tour busses. They are there to provide a public transit function.

Public parks are not competing with private parks and tourist attractions. Same deal.

A public option in health care would be like all these other things - an "option". If many people opt for it, who knows, it might force private insurers to rethink the way they do business.

I see that as a good thing.

Ted and I agree. Let's see how it plays out. In 50 states. Try it. If it's a disaster, end it. (I suspect it won't be.)

And with that, I'll wait for Joe to tell me California must try it first. Because I'm psychic, I know he will.

Try it in CA and see how it works. Why not. Many states won’t vote for the public option so implement it in those that want it. Let the states that don’t want it alone. How bout that? Where is it written you must try it nationwide or not at all?

[JoeMemphis]

Oh? Then why do you support Medicare?

Medicare is a safety net program and it doesn’t have 100% of the market.

[gounion]

Medicare is a safety net program and it doesn’t have 100% of the market.

Medicare has 100% of the market over 65 years old.

[Bludogdem]

Medicare has 100% of the market over 65 years old.

Then why do I and millions over over 65’s have private healthcare coverage.

[Bludogdem]

I don't believe the Post Office is there, per se, to "compete" with UPS and FedEx. I believe it exists as a public service to the people of this country, and in turn because of its nature offers some things they don't.

I don't believe public busses are there to compete with private jitneys and tour busses. They are there to provide a public transit function.

Public parks are not competing with private parks and tourist attractions. Same deal.

A public option in health care would be like all these other things - an "option". If many people opt for it, who knows, it might force private insurers to rethink the way they do business.

I see that as a good thing.

Ted and I agree. Let's see how it plays out. In 50 states. Try it. If it's a disaster, end it. (I suspect it won't be.)

And with that, I'll wait for Joe to tell me California must try it first. Because I'm psychic, I know he will.

A public option would, like ACA, be administered by private insurance companies.

[JoeMemphis]

Medicare has 100% of the market over 65 years old.

And yet there’s a huge market out there under 65. Many times they use the same doctors and hospitals. So no Medicare doesn’t have or control 100 percent of health care. It serves a segment of the market.

[ProfX]

That's the way it's been done so far. At the state level. (Since I know Joe wants to see this stuff tested at the state level first.)

https://www.healthinsurance.org/glossary/public-option/

It's not necessarily the case. A variety of kinds of public options have been discussed.

[JoeMemphis]

A public option would, like ACA, be administered by private insurance companies.

In the real world on a national level it might take decades for another Obama type majority sufficient to pass either the public option or single payer. In the meantime, those folks who are big proponents of either of those plans should be selling them and passing them at the state level where they can. It’s just common sense. The fact that they won’t even consider trying makes me question the feasibility of what they are selling. I see no other excuse for not even attempting to pass such a “no brainer” at the state level other than the numbers don’t or won’t work. Fact of the matter is that such a proposal will cost every working person and every business more money. You can’t sell that to a state because they have to make the numbers work. They can’t bury these costs in the national deficit and expect the government to print money to cover the deficits.

So prove it works. Or live with what you sold to the nation 10+ years ago at the health care solution. If you can’t sell it to your own people don’t be surprised if others aren’t willing to buy in. You sound like a used car salesman that’s afraid for a buyer to take a test drive.

[JoeMemphis]

That's the way it's been done so far. At the state level. (Since I know Joe wants to see this stuff tested at the state level first.)

https://www.healthinsurance.org/glossary/public-option/

It's not necessarily the case. A variety of kinds of public options have been discussed.

I’m happy to see folks who support your no proposals implement them at the state level. Not partially. But fully.

[gounion]

In the real world on a national level it might take decades for another Obama type majority sufficient to pass either the public option or single payer. In the meantime, those folks who are big proponents of either of those plans should be selling them and passing them at the state level where they can. It’s just common sense. The fact that they won’t even consider trying makes me question the feasibility of what they are selling. I see no other excuse for not even attempting to pass such a “no brainer” at the state level other than the numbers don’t or won’t work. Fact of the matter is that such a proposal will cost every working person and every business more money. You can’t sell that to a state because they have to make the numbers work. They can’t bury these costs in the national deficit and expect the government to print money to cover the deficits.

So prove it works. Or live with what you sold to the nation 10+ years ago at the health care solution. If you can’t sell it to your own people don’t be surprised if others aren’t willing to buy in. You sound like a used car salesman that’s afraid for a buyer to take a test drive.

We already know that it works, for over half a century, and works in other nations. We also know that corporate health care DOESN'T work, it's been a disaster and people have died because of it.

But here's the bottom line: You're just deflecting, because even if it WAS tried in California, was a huge success and dropped the cost of care and was wildly popular, YOU'D STILL BE AGAINST IT. Why? Because you don't give a shit about people getting proper health care, or it being affordable or good. You make a lot of money from for-profit health care scamming, and you want that to keep up.

And let's be clear: Since you're retired, you're on Medicare if you're over 65, or you're probably on ObamaCare if you're not. You're not forced to do either. But you don't let ideology stop you from doing what's best for YOU. You're a hypocrite.

[JoeMemphis]

We already know that it works, for over half a century, and works in other nations. We also know that corporate health care DOESN'T work, it's been a disaster and people have died because of it.

But here's the bottom line: You're just deflecting, because even if it WAS tried in California, was a huge success and dropped the cost of care and was wildly popular, YOU'D STILL BE AGAINST IT. Why? Because you don't give a shit about people getting proper health care, or it being affordable or good. You make a lot of money from for-profit health care scamming, and you want that to keep up.

And let's be clear: Since you're retired, you're on Medicare if you're over 65, or you're probably on ObamaCare if you're not. You're not forced to do either. But you don't let ideology stop you from doing what's best for YOU. You're a hypocrite.

No we really don’t know how giving the government a monopoly over healthcare funding works in this country. Further you are reluctant to do so because you’re afraid it won’t work. But prove me wrong. Go ahead.

You don’t have the support in Congress to pass either a public option or M4A on a national level and probably won’t have for several years, if ever. So your best bet is to implement whatever government plan you happen to like in a state willing to fund it. If you believe so passionately in your solution and you think it’s a no brainer. Implement it where you can in states favorably disposed to your ideas. Why wait? You can’t or won’t answer that question. Why do you insist on an all or nothing strategy? Why do you insist on foisting your ideology on people who live in states that don’t want either a public option or M4A and who aren’t anxious to see their payroll taxes double to pay for it?

You mention choice. So let your states choose. Put it to a vote there. Let’s see how that works out for you.

[gounion]

No we really don’t know how giving the government a monopoly over healthcare funding works in this country. Further you are reluctant to do so because you’re afraid it won’t work. But prove me wrong. Go ahead.

It works everywhere else. And let's be clear: it's corporate health care that's been the disaster.

You don’t have the support in Congress to pass either a public option or M4A on a national level and probably won’t have for several years, if ever. So your best bet is to implement whatever government plan you happen to like in a state willing to fund it. If you believe so passionately in your solution and you think it’s a no brainer. Implement it where you can in states favorably disposed to your ideas. Why wait? You can’t or won’t answer that question. Why do you insist on an all or nothing strategy? Why do you insist on foisting your ideology on people who live in states that don’t want either a public option or M4A and who aren’t anxious to see their payroll taxes double to pay for it?

You mention choice. So let your states choose. Put it to a vote there. Let’s see how that works out for you.

We did it your way. You don't care how many people die, you want your profits. That's working for you, isn't it?

[Libertas]

It works everywhere else. And let's be clear: it's corporate health care that's been the disaster.

We did it your way. You don't care how many people die, you want your profits. That's working for you, isn't it?

They dont care how many die under the current system, as long as they have their premiere insurance they are good with the consequences.

[JoeMemphis]

It works everywhere else. And let's be clear: it's corporate health care that's been the disaster.

We did it your way. You don't care how many people die, you want your profits. That's working for you, isn't it?

If it works everywhere else you shouldn’t have any trouble selling it to a blue state. What’s the holdup if it’s such a no brainer.

The current law of the land is ACA. That’s your solution. Your way. If it’s the disaster you claim then ACA didn’t accomplish it’s objectives. So your last solution hasn’t worked by your own definition. You call it a disaster.

[gounion]

If it works everywhere else you shouldn’t have any trouble selling it to a blue state. What’s the holdup if it’s such a no brainer.

The current law of the land is ACA. That’s your solution. Your way. If it’s the disaster you claim then ACA didn’t accomplish it’s objectives. So your last solution hasn’t worked by your own definition. You call it a disaster.

Everything the ACA did, it did well. Fixed the worst parts of corporate health care but more must be done.

[Glennfs]

Everything the ACA did, it did well. Fixed the worst parts of corporate health care but more must be done.

Shame that labor was opposed to the ACA until they were made exempt from the Cadillac tax which we all knew would never come to pass


https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles ... acare?amp=

[JoeMemphis]

Everything the ACA did, it did well. Fixed the worst parts of corporate health care but more must be done.

That would be an excellent selling point for you to make to California. Good Luck.

[gounion]

That would be an excellent selling point for you to make to California. Good Luck.

We're not selling anything. This is a message board, and we're debating issues. Something you are completely unable to do.

For instance, I noticed you couldn't argue with my point, and instead conceded it.

[JoeMemphis]

We're not selling anything. This is a message board, and we're debating issues. Something you are completely unable to do.

For instance, I noticed you couldn't argue with my point, and instead conceded it.

I have repeatedly raised a single point numerous times and you have avoided it post after post after post.


CLEARLY we do not agree. As far as arguing your point. It’s a talking point. It’s an opinion. One I do not share. You can’t explain or refuse to explain why this hasn’t been tried in a state. How many years has single payer been around, M4A, public option?? How many more must go by before you stop talking and pass it where you can? Or are you just gonna keep repeating the same worn out talking points. I doubt you have 50 votes in the Senate. I doubt everyone in your party agrees. I doubt you have a majority in the House to support it. The President has already said the nation can’t afford it. So I am not the person you should be trying to convince. I’ve already told you I do not support or believe in turning the entire health care industry, directly or indirectly, over to any corporation or government. So go convince someone open to those ideals.

[gounion]

I have repeatedly raised a single point numerous times and you have avoided it post after post after post.


CLEARLY we do not agree. As far as arguing your point. It’s a talking point. It’s an opinion. One I do not share. You can’t explain or refuse to explain why this hasn’t been tried in a state. How many years has single payer been around, M4A, public option?? How many more must go by before you stop talking and pass it where you can? Or are you just gonna keep repeating the same worn out talking points. I doubt you have 50 votes in the Senate. I doubt everyone in your party agrees. I doubt you have a majority in the House to support it. The President has already said the nation can’t afford it. So I am not the person you should be trying to convince. I’ve already told you I do not support or believe in turning the entire health care industry, directly or indirectly, over to any corporation or government. So go convince someone open to those ideals.

You still can't figure out the difference between opinion and fact. I guess that comes from being a Republican and listening to their bullshit. No, it's FACTUAL about ObamaCare. Some FACTS:

• More Americans have health insurance
• Health insurance is more affordable for many people
• Under the ACA, you can’t be denied coverage because of a preexisting health problem
• No time limits exist on care
• The ACA covers many screenings and preventive services.
• The ACA has made prescription drugs more affordable.

The corporate way of providing health care was that there was a lifetime max even in employer-provided health insurance. If you had multiple cases of dread diseases in your family, the insurance companies would stop paying anything at all, so the best of families would go bankrupt with no coverage.

Funny thing was they still charged the company the monthly fee for that family.

And if you had been diagnosed with cancer, you couldn't find any insurance that would cover it. "Pre-existing condition", they'd say. I had a co-worker that was scared to death of getting laid off, because he had a son that had severe asthma that cost LOTS of money in treatment to keep him alive, and though he was a very skilled craftsman that could immediately get a new job, the insurance at the next employer wouldn't cover his son.

Wow, isn't that great? Aren't you proud of how corporate insurance handled things? I bet that was why you were against ObamaCare.

But since you can't debate as an adult, keep up with your deflective talking points.

[JoeMemphis]

You still can't figure out the difference between opinion and fact. I guess that comes from being a Republican and listening to their bullshit. No, it's FACTUAL about ObamaCare. Some FACTS:

• More Americans have health insurance
• Health insurance is more affordable for many people
• Under the ACA, you can’t be denied coverage because of a preexisting health problem
• No time limits exist on care
• The ACA covers many screenings and preventive services.
• The ACA has made prescription drugs more affordable.

The corporate way of providing health care was that there was a lifetime max even in employer-provided health insurance. If you had multiple cases of dread diseases in your family, the insurance companies would stop paying anything at all, so the best of families would go bankrupt with no coverage.

Funny thing was they still charged the company the monthly fee for that family.

And if you had been diagnosed with cancer, you couldn't find any insurance that would cover it. "Pre-existing condition", they'd say. I had a co-worker that was scared to death of getting laid off, because he had a son that had severe asthma that cost LOTS of money in treatment to keep him alive, and though he was a very skilled craftsman that could immediately get a new job, the insurance at the next employer wouldn't cover his son.

Wow, isn't that great? Aren't you proud of how corporate insurance handled things? I bet that was why you were against ObamaCare.

But since you can't debate as an adult, keep up with your deflective talking points.

I don’t seek to repeal ACA and yet you keep selling that which you have already sold. Your plan. Passed by your party. Sold as the answer to health care. It’s objective was to make health care affordable and to set a standard for base coverage. So it was either the successful solution or it wasn’t. It’s a matter of opinion. You are welcome to yours. I am welcome to mine. I will note that you are the guy seeking to replace ACA and you are the guy claiming health insurance is a “disaster” while at the same time claiming that ACA was a success. I will also note that you have no explanation for why this idea of a public option, M4A, single payer hasn’t been tried in a state full of the party faithful. A point you can’t or won’t rebut. You just deflect with another set of tired used up talking points about ACA.

Again. I am not seeking to replace ACA. That’s you. I’m prepared to live with ACA. I don’t understand why you are not. I am not willing to accept another hyped up government solution that is untried and untested in this country which is designed to create a government monopoly in health care. I am certainly not willing to buy into something you either can’t or wont sell to your own party in a state you control. It’s a suckers bet.