• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$840 Billion Medicare Cut

Trump - I will not implement cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Trump - Lie, lie, and lie.
 
marke said:
If government control should be the ultimate good behind the best economies then why have so many economies being run by the government failed so miserably in history?
Click to expand...

They're all run by a government of some sort, that's my point. They DEMAND regulation. Markets like we have today could never exist without a rational authority. A free market is impossible and, thus, is a stick with a carrot for fools.

Governments fail for various reasons. That in no way diminishes human need or the many good things that have been done in the name of "socialism", as in its modern, humanist context.

I'm afraid you've been defending a fantasy against those you'd otherwise agree with. I'm much more concerned about people, rather than markets, being free.
 
D_NATURED said:
They're all run by a government of some sort, that's my point. They DEMAND regulation. Markets like we have today could never exist without a rational authority. A free market is impossible and, thus, is a stick with a carrot for fools.

Governments fail for various reasons. That in no way diminishes human need or the many good things that have been done in the name of "socialism", as in its modern, humanist context.

I'm afraid you've been defending a fantasy against those you'd otherwise agree with. I'm much more concerned about people, rather than markets, being free.
Click to expand...

Even if modern Americans cannot see the dangers of communism and socialism, more than 100 million people who died in the last 100 years under brutal communist/socialist rule did experience the pain brought by the rise of wicked ruthless godless rulers over societies.
 
marke said:
Even if modern Americans cannot see the dangers of communism and socialism, more than 100 million people who died in the last 100 years under brutal communist/socialist rule did experience the pain brought by the rise of wicked ruthless godless rulers over societies.
Click to expand...

That's a bull**** cop out. Socialism and communism are two different things. Besides, socialism didn't kill those people, DICTATORS did. Furthermore, being godless does not make you more violent. In fact, it's usually the opposite. Consider the very god-obsessed middle east, where murder, rape, oppression and war are daily occurrences, committed by the faithful. Consider the USA, where religion and the military have formed a long-standing unholy union. Consider too, how American christianity existed relatively conflict free in an environment of slavery, for hundreds of years.

People are capable of being really ****ty to each other and god belief has never stopped that. If anything, it's defined who the acceptable victims are. So, save that ignorant blather for someone who CAN'T read a history book.

Sure, many have died in the defense of political religions. That should be our cue to stop treating politics like something in which blind faith is necessary. I don't think classic socialism is the answer to America's problems but I DO think there are aspects of it that make sense that are rejected on religious grounds by right wing morons. When you blame a political system for what humans do, you step into a dumb trap. The conservatives who reject single payer healthcare because they call it "socialism" DESERVE to die, bankrupted by private healthcare costs. That's poetic justice. The tragedy is how many others they'll take with them.
 
D_NATURED said:
That's a bull**** cop out. Socialism and communism are two different things. Besides, socialism didn't kill those people, DICTATORS did. Furthermore, being godless does not make you more violent. In fact, it's usually the opposite. Consider the very god-obsessed middle east, where murder, rape, oppression and war are daily occurrences, committed by the faithful. Consider the USA, where religion and the military have formed a long-standing unholy union. Consider too, how American christianity existed relatively conflict free in an environment of slavery, for hundreds of years.

People are capable of being really ****ty to each other and god belief has never stopped that. If anything, it's defined who the acceptable victims are. So, save that ignorant blather for someone who CAN'T read a history book.

Sure, many have died in the defense of political religions. That should be our cue to stop treating politics like something in which blind faith is necessary. I don't think classic socialism is the answer to America's problems but I DO think there are aspects of it that make sense that are rejected on religious grounds by right wing morons. When you blame a political system for what humans do, you step into a dumb trap. The conservatives who reject single payer healthcare because they call it "socialism" DESERVE to die, bankrupted by private healthcare costs. That's poetic justice. The tragedy is how many others they'll take with them.
Click to expand...

What you misunderstand as "blind faith" in God is typical of what leftists believe who have "blind faith" in the godless democrat party.
 
marke said:
What you misunderstand as "blind faith" in God is typical of what leftists believe who have "blind faith" in the godless democrat party.
Click to expand...

It's called the "Democratic" party, not the ignorant version you use. And, the leaders of the Democratic party line up, like many other politicians, to patronize stupid sky worshipers who demand to have their fantasies legitimized by power and enshrined in common law. However, I'll agree that the political left, not the Democratic party, is the only safe place for those who dare to live free of the sort of dogma that the GOP uses as a bludgeon against democracy and human rights.

It seems like you are trying very hard to parrot the most ignorant conservative propaganda your atrophied mind can summon. The anti-democratic plutocrats that represent the conservative power machine would be thrilled to know their imaginary gods are still an effective tool for dividing people and closing small, ugly minds.

You are everything they hoped you'd be, narrow, bigoted and proudly inflexible to new information.
 
jaeger19 said:
i would say no...

but.. you are talking about doing the same thing. Trump is talking about "cutting money from Medicare"...by doing things like making patients get preauthorization for surgery etc..

Well that is EXACTLY what you liberals are talking about doing. You may not realize it when you crow about how successful other countries are at "keeping healthcare cost low"...but doing things like preauthorization is EXACTLY what those countries do to lower their costs.

Why do other countries have higher wait times for care? One of the reasons is preauthorization.

Thats whats sad... you are angry for what trump is doing.. because its trump. But he is doing exactly what you want.. he is LOWERING THE COST OF HEALTHCARE.

You liberals seem to think that there is some free lunch to be had here.. that lowering the cost of healthcare has no consequences..

Well there is no free lunch.

You need to think about this for a while..the whole liberal population does.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how forcing preauthorization for ridiculously priced procedures does anything to lower the cost of healthcare....all you did spend less on healthcare...the price is still the exact same as it was before you denied the claim to begin with.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Explain to me how forcing preauthorization for ridiculously priced procedures does anything to lower the cost of healthcare....all you did spend less on healthcare...the price is still the exact same as it was before you denied the claim to begin with.
Click to expand...

Cost from the point of view of the buyer is the price multiplied by how much of it you buy. Medicare is already a price setter so it pays the prices that the government chooses to set. Prior auth is about controlling utilization, scrutinizing whether a service is necessary and appropriate.
 
Greenbeard said:
Cost from the point of view of the buyer is the price multiplied by how much of it you buy. Medicare is already a price setter so it pays the prices that the government chooses to set. Prior auth is about controlling utilization, scrutinizing whether a service is necessary and appropriate.
Click to expand...

All of that is true....but it happens no matter which system is being employed.

My question is why has it always been okay for a for profit insurer to do that, but not the government through single payer?
 
Helix said:
seems safe to speculate that if the house hadn't flipped, these programs would have been significantly more at risk.
Click to expand...

You might agree that Medicare is less than perfectly administered. Nor is the law regarding how Medicare pays for medicines something that could not be changed to the better. I think you also agree that there is much Medicare fraud by providers.

Saying this it always drives me nuts when I see a reflective response such as yours. It is possible to IMPROVE and program while REDUCING costs. A large part of my career was doing just that for companies that have already strove to be as efficient as possible. Almost always found there are areas for improvement while helping all stakeholders,including employees.

I liked to say if we did a good job in managing our division, 200 families would have a good,stable life. Same can be true for a government program.
 
calamity said:
So, they aren't even pretending anymore.



Stealing from the poor to give to the rich--ladies and gents, your GOP.
Click to expand...

Gotta pay for Trump's grifts somehow.

Trump will personally save up to $15m under tax bill, analysis finds
Along with Trump himself, Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary; Linda McMahon, administrator of the Small Business Administration; Betsy DeVos, the education secretary; Steven Mnuchin, the treasury secretary; and Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, will benefit to the tune of $4.5m from changes to the estate tax, according to the CAP.

Wonder why Republican Senators always support Trump...
Jubilant Republicans took a victory lap at the White House on Wednesday to mark what they called a historic day. The House speaker, Paul Ryan, praised Trump for “exquisite presidential leadership”


The richest Americans getting richer at the expense of the poor and middle class. What a grift.
 
Last edited:
washunut said:
You might agree that Medicare is less than perfectly administered. Nor is the law regarding how Medicare pays for medicines something that could not be changed to the better. I think you also agree that there is much Medicare fraud by providers.

Saying this it always drives me nuts when I see a reflective response such as yours. It is possible to IMPROVE and program while REDUCING costs. A large part of my career was doing just that for companies that have already strove to be as efficient as possible. Almost always found there are areas for improvement while helping all stakeholders,including employees.

I liked to say if we did a good job in managing our division, 200 families would have a good,stable life. Same can be true for a government program.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with improving Medicare. One improvement that I'd like to see would be to expand the program to cover everyone.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
All of that is true....but it happens no matter which system is being employed.

My question is why has it always been okay for a for profit insurer to do that, but not the government through single payer?
Click to expand...

That seems to be a question the Trump administration is raising as well.
 
Helix said:
I'm fine with improving Medicare. One improvement that I'd like to see would be to expand the program to cover everyone.
Click to expand...

I would like to fix the current program before expanding it. Not sure many people understand that Medicare for all would be a materially bigger payoff to corporations than the recent tax cut they received.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Explain to me how forcing preauthorization for ridiculously priced procedures does anything to lower the cost of healthcare....all you did spend less on healthcare...the price is still the exact same as it was before you denied the claim to begin with.
Click to expand...

Easy... 10 surgeries at 1000 dollar a pop.. costs the government 10,000 dollars. That's the cost of healthcare

7 surgeries at 1000 dollars a pop.. because three surgeries were denied.. costs the government 7000 dollars... that's a lower cost of healthcare.
 
Helix said:
I'm fine with improving Medicare. One improvement that I'd like to see would be to expand the program to cover everyone.
Click to expand...

Please explain that.

Part A

PArt B

PArt D.. or what?
 
jaeger19 said:
Please explain that.

Part A

PArt B

PArt D.. or what?
Click to expand...

yes, prescriptions should be included. basically, you get sick, and then you go get treated. crazy, i know. however, you and i aren't discussing this topic anymore, remember? i do. peace!
 
jaeger19 said:
Easy... 10 surgeries at 1000 dollar a pop.. costs the government 10,000 dollars. That's the cost of healthcare

7 surgeries at 1000 dollars a pop.. because three surgeries were denied.. costs the government 7000 dollars... that's a lower cost of healthcare.
Click to expand...

Except that isn't correct. That isn't THE COST of health care. That is the expenditure on health care. They aren't the same thing.

The COST of TV at Costco might be $699. If I don't purchase that TV, it still doesn't do anything to lower the cost of that TV. Its still gonna be $699.

In your example, each surgery would cost $1000. If the government doesn't pay for 3 of them, it still cost them $1000 for the other seven they allowed to happen.

I'm not disputing that the government will spend less by denying procedures. I'm disputing that denying procedures will do anything to affect the cost of those procedures in the least.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Except that isn't correct. That isn't THE COST of health care. That is the expenditure on health care. They aren't the same thing.

The COST of TV at Costco might be $699. If I don't purchase that TV, it still doesn't do anything to lower the cost of that TV. Its still gonna be $699.

In your example, each surgery would cost $1000. If the government doesn't pay for 3 of them, it still cost them $1000 for the other seven they allowed to happen.

I'm not disputing that the government will spend less by denying procedures. I'm disputing that denying procedures will do anything to affect the cost of those procedures in the least.
Click to expand...

Again..it is the cost of healthcare.

And yep.. denying the procedure will probably don't anything to affect the PRICE of those procedures because the insurance companies set the allowable at 1000. Dollars.

Now.. there is a caveat here which is that cutting those procedures from 10 to 7 may actually INCREASE the price paid for those services,
OR it might decrease the price of services if a provider decides to quite the business.
 
jonny5 said:
Why not make it opt out? Thats a win win. Anyone who wants to be covered by single payer would be covered.
Click to expand...

that isn't how single payer works.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
I'm not disputing that the government will spend less by denying procedures. I'm disputing that denying procedures will do anything to affect the cost of those procedures in the least.
Click to expand...

You could make the same argument about price-setting for care providers. The government can lower its spending (and the nation's spending) by taking on responsibility for all health spending and dial down prices by setting its own fee schedule. But that arbitrary decision doesn't have much to do with underlying costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom