Posted on 03/31/2017 3:00:07 PM PDT by Basket_of_Deplorables
Didn’t you get the memo from the senate intel committee hearings yesterday? Getting rid of Ryan is a Russian plot. Clint Watts says so.
Listen for yourself: Mark 6:23
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4664379/clinton-watts-senate-intelligence-committee-hearing
More scumsucking socialist RINOs opposed the bill from the left than conservatives opposed it from the right. I’d like to see the President call out those knobgobblers.
Ping to #82
“I will walk from this party if it goes after conservatives....they are the only reason I vote Republican. The party will have left me behind in their rush to be democrats”
What is a “conservative”?
Is it someone who claims it, but never accomplishes any of it?
Is it someone who actually implements some conservative ideals?
I’d say the first group deserves some political hand grenades tossed at them. Walk or run away from the Republicans as you wish. You will get nothing conservative out of that. I agree that more would be better, but nothing is worse than some.
Sure you may be more pure politically, but that in itself is meaningless.
The HFC needs to take what they can get, after they get it, they need to go for more. Right now they have accomplished nothing for conservatism. Just like the Democrats.
Makes me wonder if they really want smaller, fiscally sound government.
“Face it. Conservatives lost the battle with regard to healthcare. I hate that. You hate that.
But it’s time to move on.”
Conservatives lost the Healthcare battle in the 60s. Even if you repeal obamacare completely, which would be good, we are still a socialist country on Healthcare.
Conservatives lost this issue so badly that nobody even thinks of Medicare as anti-conservative. No conservative will touch it.
>> We lost the battle at Pearl Harbor.
Next time you decide to make an idiotic statement, exclude the Military.
Might not happen right away.
President-elect Donald Trump revealed in an interview with The Washington Post that he’s almost finished with a plan to replace ObamaCare and vowed to have “insurance for everybody.”
Trump insists that the new law will be better despite worries from Congress and the possibility of putting 20 million Americans at risk of losing their health coverage.
“Trump: We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
Trump insists health care replacement will have 'insurance for everybody' (January 16, 2017 FoxNews.com)
Medicare is a payroll deduction and also paid later by monthly premiums. On the average, MC/SS takes in more $$ over the lifetime of a worker than they pay out in benefits to that worker because not every worker survives to 65 and even fewer survive 10 years beyond that. Touch it, and granny will disinherit you and leave it all to her cats.
“Touch it, and granny will disinherit you and leave it all to her cats.”
That is the point. I believe MC pays out far more on average than taxpayers pay in. It also reimburses at around 40% and forces increased fees to those with private insurance.
It is a socialist construct
It is the farthest thing from free market or conservatism.
But as you say, nobody will touch it, not even conservative purists.
Even conservatives love the program....
So we are all socialists, like it or not.
The freedom caucus has been AWOL for years until a republican president showed up.
Purist theorists who have been all talk and no striving for leadership
Using Medicare to support a socialist argument isn't the wisest example.
'Sickness insurance' has been around since before socialism was a twinkle in Engel's eye. The poorest of the poor from antebellum Charleston and New York to London paid their weekly 'medical attendance' fee to various pools.
The Great Depression collapsed most pools, which were replaced by hospital pools (who got the AMA to revoke licenses/and-or deny privileges of any doctor who tried to start their own pools). By the start of WW2 only 9% of Americans had any form of 'attendance' insurance. Hospitals spun off indemnity companies, whose hospitalization plans were used by industrial employers to entice employees at a time when wages were frozen and labor was in short supply due to the WW2. Community rating was tried but 'experience rated', insuring only the healthiest, quickly became preferable models. By the end of the war only 23% had hospital coverage.
At first the AFL union opposed payroll deductions, thinking it would weaken their power over members. But with collective bargaining the law, and by tying SS eligibility to eligibility for Medicare, the unions joined the AMA/Hospitals in pushing for payroll deductions.
Payroll deductions for the new and improved hospital pool now called Medicare were seen as a vehicle to allow flexibility in wages. And to shift the policy cost to non-union workers not in a position to negotiate lower rates. The plan was also more attractive to states.
So Medicare Part A was born in the 60's, by all intents and purposes a 'free market' product of America's hospitals, to be paid to hospitals, using the government purely as a third-party administrator.
“Using Medicare to support a socialist argument isn’t the wisest example.”
It’s not as bad as it may have been at one time. Right now Medicare/Medicaid is a pretty good example of socialism - but the only reason it used to work is that the cost of socialism could be carried by privately insured clients to make up for whatever Medicare/Medicaid doesn’t pay.
In fact, medicare/medicaid keep medical costs artificially high - because if the reimbursement rate is set at a fractional percentage of what hospitals charge for procedures - in other words, if a hospital lowers costs, they automatically are giving medicare/caid paid care a further discount to the outrageous discount that congress decides to award.
It’s a perfect example because:
Gov’t pays an arbitrary amount for services
Gov’t actions have adverse unintended consequences for folks who don’t have insurance
Gov’t policy encourages gaming the system to charge for more things than are necessary to make up for underpayments
Accumulated negatives result in doctors and hospitals being increasingly reluctant to accept Gov’t coverage.
.....and others.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.