OdontoBear66;842849675 said:

---

Back track and work on real solutions, not what has failed.

---

Which you and the GOP do not have (or if any of you do, none have been offered publicly). I'd like people to keep their health care until that happens, thanks.

If Republicans have actual ideas about how to maintain health coverage for people without mandates or "free" insurance from the government I'm happy to hear them. Right now it seems like their priorities are not geared towards helping the common man, but almost entirely towards cutting taxes (mostly for rich people). If they re-prioritized they might have some better ideas.

sycasey;842849691 said:

---

Which you and the GOP do not have (or if any of you do, none have been offered publicly). I'd like people to keep their health care until that happens, thanks.

If Republicans have actual ideas about how to maintain health coverage for people without mandates or "free" insurance from the government I'm happy to hear them. Right now it seems like their priorities are not geared towards helping the common man, but almost entirely towards cutting taxes (mostly for rich people). If they re-prioritized they might have some better ideas.

---

It seems like you and Odonto are arguing around your main disagreement.

I don't think we should be debating here what the right solution is. I'm sorry, but none of us here are smart enough to have a solution to an issue that has been a struggle at least in the US for decades. If one of us had the solution, we would be hailed as heroes and not be relegated to being internet warriors who spend hours on a football board discussing politics. And when my party talks about more affordable premium, what they really mean is lower taxes and cheaper premium for crap coverage. Not very proud of my party for that line of BS. If you think that taxes are too high and people don't deserve basic medical coverage, at least have the courage to say that instead of pretending to have some magical solution that provides better coverage at lower cost.

I think the questions we need to ask ourselves on a more basic level as a country are:

1. Is healthcare a basic right? How would we feel about a child or even an adult dying because of lack of funds to get basic medical services?

2. If it is a basic right, who is better able to protect that right? Large government or charity?

3. And why does healthcare rise above food and shelter? Do we guarantee those as well? If so, do we guarantee equal level of food and shelter for all or just basic? Anyone here feeling OK with giving up their home or access to restaurants so that everyone has same housing and food access?

Pretending that one of us can propose a solution is a waste of time. I can only express my opinion and not a solution. I can't imagine being proud of a country that allows children to die because their parents cannot afford basic care. I also do not believe that everyone deserves equal wealth or benefits beyond the basic services or that the 1% are evil or bastards. My desire to provide healthcare for all at a basic level (with the option of rich people to get more luxurious services at extra cost) is more from my concern for the less privileged and not as a result of envy or covetousness (which envy translates to class war or hating those richer than us). Just my opinion and why I would be OK with single-payer system (not Obamacare but expanded Medicare for all) supplemented by private insurance for the more fortunate who can afford additional attention.

calbear93;842849706 said:

---

It seems like you and Odonto are arguing around your main disagreement.

I don't think we should be debating here what the right solution is. I'm sorry, but none of us here are smart enough to have a solution to an issue that has been a struggle at least in the US for decades. If one of us had the solution, we would be hailed as heroes and not be relegated to being internet warriors who spend hours on a football board discussing politics. And when my party talks about more affordable premium, what they really mean is lower taxes and cheaper premium for crap coverage. Not very proud of my party for that line of BS. If you think that taxes are too high and people don't deserve basic medical coverage, at least have the courage to say that instead of pretending to have some magical solution that provides better coverage at lower cost.

I think the questions we need to ask ourselves on a more basic level as a country are:

1. Is healthcare a basic right? How would we feel about a child or even an adult dying because of lack of funds to get basic medical services?

2. If it is a basic right, who is better able to protect that right? Large government or charity?

3. And why does healthcare rise above food and shelter? Do we guarantee those as well? If so, do we guarantee equal level of food and shelter for all or just basic? Anyone here feeling OK with giving up their home or access to restaurants so that everyone has same housing and food access?

Pretending that one of us can propose a solution is a waste of time. I can only express my opinion and not a solution. I can't imagine being proud of a country that allows children to die because their parents cannot afford basic care. I also do not believe that everyone deserves equal wealth or benefits beyond the basic services or that the 1% are evil or bastards. My desire to provide healthcare for all at a basic level (with the option of rich people to get more luxurious services at extra cost) is more from my concern for the less privileged and not as a result of envy or covetousness (which envy translates to class war or hating those richer than us). Just my opinion and why I would be OK with single-payer system (not Obamacare but expanded Medicare for all) supplemented by private insurance for the more fortunate who can afford additional attention.

---

Your suggestion at solution would be great, but first is it within out means to afford? Your post shows a balanced post. Sycasey and I have been going back and forth, he asking for solutions, me referring back to a bad mistake being made in 2013 that needs rectifying. Your two tiered system seems interesting but I highly suspect it is not within the limits of affordability----that being not an add on such that other societal obligations cannot be met or are diminished. And you are very right that we, as mere mortals, are probably not programmed with "the solution". But I sure know what is not good, what is not working, and the direction the delivery of medicine is/was going.

OdontoBear66;842849308 said:

---

Just today on read on Yahoo how Seattle's minimum wage $15 mandate is totally backfiring (note, not BI, not Fox, but Yahoo)----cutting back time of work, letting go workers, etc. Whoops? There is only so much to go around and another liberal feel good item goes awry. When you have it, and you are greedy, you deserve having such mandates. But when you run on slim margins or are being seriously cut back, the monies should stay with those taking the risk.

---

According to the Seattle study, jobs under $19/hr dropped 8% while jobs above $19/hr grew 21% and overall jobs grew 11%. That doesn't sound like a backfire. It appears the study failed to account for Seattle's booming economy where wages are going up beyond the minimum wage. Seattle is booming during the minimum wage increase - too bad for the minimum wage haters.

Warren Buffett calls ObamaCare repeal bill 'Relief for the Rich Act
-The Hill

dajo9;842849729 said:

---

According to the Seattle study, jobs under $19/hr dropped 8% while jobs above $19/hr grew 21% and overall jobs grew 11%. That doesn't sound like a backfire. It appears the study failed to account for Seattle's booming economy where wages are going up beyond the minimum wage. Seattle is booming during the minimum wage increase - too bad for the minimum wage haters.

---

As always you see what you want to see to make your case and slip over all else. It is hitting those that ostensibly would have benefited from the increase. So your numbers suggest, as I do that those under the $15 number are losing jobs, and the $20 up people are doing great. How does this help the under 15s?

bearister;842849759 said:

---

Warren Buffett calls ObamaCare repeal bill 'Relief for the Rich Act
-The Hill

---

Warren says a lot of things with billions in his coffer. Comfort level where it will never touch him. Much like our elected politicians who have their own healthcare---I am sure they haven't chosen Medicaid like plans.

OdontoBear66;842849761 said:

---

Warren says a lot of things with billions in his coffer. Comfort level where it will never touch him. Much like our elected politicians who have their own healthcare---I am sure they haven't chosen Medicaid like plans.

---

Koch Brothers pop off a lot too but in the opposite direction and Bezos is intent on putting as many people out of work as possible.

OdontoBear66;842849760 said:

---

As always you see what you want to see to make your case and slip over all else. It is hitting those that ostensibly would have benefited from the increase. So your numbers suggest, as I do that those under the $15 number are losing jobs, and the $20 up people are doing great. How does this help the under 15s?

---

Because some of the under $19/hr crowd are now part of the over $19/hr crowd because of the strong economy

bearister;842849763 said:

---

Koch Brothers pop off a lot to but in the opposite direction and Bezos is intent on putting as many people out of work as possible.

---

Not my pick. Yours, just like Buffett. I would stick with policy. People tend to disappoint. Look at Trump, Obama, Reid, Cruz, Pelosi, etc.

dajo9;842849729 said:

---

According to the Seattle study, jobs under $19/hr dropped 8% while jobs above $19/hr grew 21% and overall jobs grew 11%. That doesn't sound like a backfire. It appears the study failed to account for Seattle's booming economy where wages are going up beyond the minimum wage. Seattle is booming during the minimum wage increase - too bad for the minimum wage haters.

---

So in 2014 Seattle passed a law that raised the min wage to $13/hr in 2016 and $15/hr. this year. So the lost income with the hours reduction exceeds (in hourly wages) the gain by the increase. Hmmm. The average low wage employee made $1897/month. The reduction in hours cost the average employee $179/month while the gain $54/month thru the increase---net loss $125/month. Pretty big for the bottom wage group I would say. Smart. In San Diego on the other hand in the last 13 months 4000 food service jobs have been lost or not created(this number a bit hard to measure admittedly), in the last 13 months with the min wage increase $10.50 to $11.50/hr.

Sounds to me that it is hurting more than helping those it was meant to help. In Baltimore, the new city mayor, who campaigned on raising the min wage has abandoned such for she wants the city to survive. Hmmm.

Of course, the fallacy that this effects heads of households so it is a bleeding heart issue is mostly untrue as most who it effects are entry level individuals who move on and up, students and other young people under 25.

calbear93;842849706 said:

---

It seems like you and Odonto are arguing around your main disagreement.

I don't think we should be debating here what the right solution is. I'm sorry, but none of us here are smart enough to have a solution to an issue that has been a struggle at least in the US for decades. If one of us had the solution, we would be hailed as heroes and not be relegated to being internet warriors who spend hours on a football board discussing politics. And when my party talks about more affordable premium, what they really mean is lower taxes and cheaper premium for crap coverage. Not very proud of my party for that line of BS. If you think that taxes are too high and people don't deserve basic medical coverage, at least have the courage to say that instead of pretending to have some magical solution that provides better coverage at lower cost.

I think the questions we need to ask ourselves on a more basic level as a country are:

1. Is healthcare a basic right? How would we feel about a child or even an adult dying because of lack of funds to get basic medical services?

2. If it is a basic right, who is better able to protect that right? Large government or charity?

3. And why does healthcare rise above food and shelter? Do we guarantee those as well? If so, do we guarantee equal level of food and shelter for all or just basic? Anyone here feeling OK with giving up their home or access to restaurants so that everyone has same housing and food access?

Pretending that one of us can propose a solution is a waste of time. I can only express my opinion and not a solution. I can't imagine being proud of a country that allows children to die because their parents cannot afford basic care. I also do not believe that everyone deserves equal wealth or benefits beyond the basic services or that the 1% are evil or bastards. My desire to provide healthcare for all at a basic level (with the option of rich people to get more luxurious services at extra cost) is more from my concern for the less privileged and not as a result of envy or covetousness (which envy translates to class war or hating those richer than us). Just my opinion and why I would be OK with single-payer system (not Obamacare but expanded Medicare for all) supplemented by private insurance for the more fortunate who can afford additional attention.

---

I agree with virtually everything here.

As for your question #3, the big reason we don't have to guarantee food and shelter is that the free market has proven itself reasonably adept at providing a minimum level of these things fairly cheaply, especially food. It won't necessarily be tastiest or most nutritious food, but you can get enough cheap food to live on.

With health care, I'd argue that the free market has already pretty well failed to provide basic, subsistence-level care at an affordable price without government involvement. That's probably because of the extremely variable nature of it: you can expect to need roughly the same amount of money to pay for food and shelter on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. So you can plan for that expense. A major medical procedure could be needed at any time; you don't know when it's coming, so it's almost impossible to plan for. As such, we have a relatively small group of people who will require very expensive care, and another larger group of people who currently don't, but who also don't know when they might join the other group. It makes for a very unstable market.

As a side note, it's also worth looking into the idea of providing shelter as a basic right too. In Utah they experimented with this and the results were pretty good:
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how

Though in fairness we should note that the results were perhaps not AS good as originally reported (the definition of "chronic homeless" can be slippery):
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865678779/Is-Utah-still-a-model-for-solving-chronic-homelessness.html

sycasey;842849850 said:

---

I agree with virtually everything here.

As for your question #3, the big reason we don't have to guarantee food and shelter is that the free market has proven itself reasonably adept at providing a minimum level of these things fairly cheaply, especially food. It won't necessarily be tastiest or most nutritious food, but you can get enough cheap food to live on.

With health care, I'd argue that the free market has already pretty well failed to provide basic, subsistence-level care at an affordable price without government involvement. That's probably because of the extremely variable nature of it: you can expect to need roughly the same amount of money to pay for food and shelter on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. So you can plan for that expense. A major medical procedure could be needed at any time; you don't know when it's coming, so it's almost impossible to plan for. As such, we have a relatively small group of people who will require very expensive care, and another larger group of people who currently don't, but who also don't know when they might join the other group. It makes for a very unstable market.

As a side note, it's also worth looking into the idea of providing shelter as a basic right too. In Utah they experimented with this and the results were pretty good:
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how

Though in fairness we should note that the results were perhaps not AS good as originally reported (the definition of "chronic homeless" can be slippery):
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865678779/Is-Utah-still-a-model-for-solving-chronic-homelessness.html

---

Additionally it's about market power. Food and shelter suppliers are numerous and forced to compete with one another. Heck, I supply one unit of shelter to a family out there. The price I charge is set by the market. When it's time for me to market, I research the rate I will be forced to accept (or sale my property).

Health is different. There are only a few medical suppliers, insurance companies, etc. There may be only one provider for a drug your child needs to live. In that case, what is the drug worth to you? Answer: everything you have.

So providing medical services is very different from being a wheat farmer (even an industrial wheat farmer) or a landlord. Medical service providers have market power because there are only a few of them and you can't walk away from their services. This creates a market malfunction (similar to how monopolistic utilities create a market malfunction).

In most of the civilized world people have agreed that the government should step in to rectify this market power imbalance.

We do supply basic food needs through food stamps

OdontoBear66;842849807 said:

---

So in 2014 Seattle passed a law that raised the min wage to $13/hr in 2016 and $15/hr. this year. So the lost income with the hours reduction exceeds (in hourly wages) the gain by the increase. Hmmm. The average low wage employee made $1897/month. The reduction in hours cost the average employee $179/month while the gain $54/month thru the increase---net loss $125/month. Pretty big for the bottom wage group I would say. Smart. In San Diego on the other hand in the last 13 months 4000 food service jobs have been lost or not created(this number a bit hard to measure admittedly), in the last 13 months with the min wage increase $10.50 to $11.50/hr.

Sounds to me that it is hurting more than helping those it was meant to help. In Baltimore, the new city mayor, who campaigned on raising the min wage has abandoned such for she wants the city to survive. Hmmm.

Of course, the fallacy that this effects heads of households so it is a bleeding heart issue is mostly untrue as most who it effects are entry level individuals who move on and up, students and other young people under 25.

---

Show the data that most are entry level workers under 25

Wake me when the impeachment thread starts. We can turn it into a Death Watch Hottie thread.

dajo9;842849857 said:

---

In most of the civilized world people have agreed that the government should step in to rectify this market power imbalance.

---

This also needs to be repeated, over and over. It's why I reject this kind of framing from conservatives:

OdontoBear66;842849722 said:

---

And you are very right that we, as mere mortals, are probably not programmed with "the solution".

---

There's no need to act like a solution to our health-care crisis requires some kind of one-of-a-kind bolt of inspiration from that all-powerful being in the sky. Many other countries have done it. The models exist, it's been proven to work. Calbear93's plan (government pays for a basic level of care, and people can purchase supplementary plans if they like) sounds very much like Canada. Is Canada a socialist nightmare that restricts citizens' freedoms and has terrible, cheap healthcare services? No, it is not. They're right across the border, doing fine.

In general terms, Obamacare worked. More people are insured. Premiums and medical costs were increasing at a rapid rate, and that rate has slowed. Most of the places where it's not working so well are in red states where the Republican governors and/or legislatures refused to actually execute the plan. They didn't take the Medicaid expansion or federal subsidies, even though those things amounted to free money from the federal government intended to help the citizens of their state (and things those citizens were already paying taxes for). In states that took the expansion, conditions are improved. Not perfect, but better. So I also reject the framing of Obamacare as a "mistake," and if you want to convince me otherwise you'll need to bring more than repeated assertions that it is. If Republicans at the state level actually tried to work with the law instead of digging in their heels against it, it probably would have worked even better.

GB54;842849867 said:

---

Show the data that most are entry level workers under 25

---

Source of most of what I report above is from Adam Summers, Southern California News Group. Maybe Fake News. Who knows this day?

sycasey;842849899 said:

---

This also needs to be repeated, over and over. It's why I reject this kind of framing from conservatives:



There's no need to act like a solution to our health-care crisis requires some kind of one-of-a-kind bolt of inspiration from that all-powerful being in the sky. Many other countries have done it. The models exist, it's been proven to work. Calbear93's plan (government pays for a basic level of care, and people can purchase supplementary plans if they like) sounds very much like Canada. Is Canada a socialist nightmare that restricts citizens' freedoms and has terrible, cheap healthcare services? No, it is not. They're right across the border, doing fine.

In general terms, Obamacare worked. More people are insured. Premiums and medical costs were increasing at a rapid rate, and that rate has slowed. Most of the places where it's not working so well are in red states where the Republican governors and/or legislatures refused to actually execute the plan. They didn't take the Medicaid expansion or federal subsidies, even though those things amounted to free money from the federal government intended to help the citizens of their state (and things those citizens were already paying taxes for). In states that took the expansion, conditions are improved. Not perfect, but better. So I also reject the framing of Obamacare as a "mistake," and if you want to convince me otherwise you'll need to bring more than repeated assertions that it is. If Republicans at the state level actually tried to work with the law instead of digging in their heels against it, it probably would have worked even better.

---

I know not if the Canadian plan works, and I would guess it does for basic services, but what I do know is that Canadians were coming across the border to get sophisticated surgeries and for treatments that the wait was too long in the past.

Secondly, Republicans do not like the Medicaid expansions or the federal supplements as they are with Obamacare. The concept of free money is beyond me.

I certainly hope we agree the new Cal uniforms as shown are SUPER. Maybe even dajo can agree to that.

OdontoBear66;842849911 said:

---

I know not if the Canadian plan works, and I would guess it does for basic services, but what I do know is that Canadians were coming across the border to get sophisticated surgeries and for treatments that the wait was too long in the past.

---

Only the very wealthy ones. A vast majority of Canadians would not have traded their system for ours, as has been confirmed in poll after poll after poll.

OdontoBear66;842849911 said:

---

Secondly, Republicans do not like the Medicaid expansions or the federal supplements as they are with Obamacare. The concept of free money is beyond me.

---

The money is free to those states. It's not coming out of their budgets and forcing them to raise taxes or stop paying for something else. The federal government is offering to pay.

Not being able to afford it is typically the conservative argument against providing new government services. In this case the state governments had no real argument; the money for it was there, waiting to be grabbed.

sycasey;842849913 said:

---

Only the very wealthy ones. A vast majority of Canadians would not have traded their system for ours, as has been confirmed in poll after poll after poll.



The money is free to those states. It's not coming out of their budgets and forcing them to raise taxes or stop paying for something else. The federal government is offering to pay.

Not being able to afford it is typically the conservative argument against providing new government services. In this case the state governments had no real argument; the money for it was there, waiting to be grabbed.

---

So if you don't grab, it disappears? And where does it come from? Gov't gets its money from where? Unless printing funny money.

Like CB93 I don't think any of us are smart enough to fix healthcare. Also like CB93 I'm still going to offer my solution again (I have done so a few times). The key to affordable healthcare starts with increasing the size of the risk pool. Single-payer is great in that respect because it gets you the largest possible risk pool. I don't think that's necessary however to achieve a massive improvement.

I would make the following changes: (i) if an insurance provider offers a plan in a state, they have to offer that plan to everyone who wants it regardless of preexisting conditions and everyone pays the same price to the insurer (whether they are an individual, at a small employer or large employer) and (ii) "most favored nations" pricing for health care services. The two main points I am trying to address are having insurance work like insurance and reducing uncertainty around pricing so that people can decide up front whether to take on services. My urgent care provider initially charged $40 per visit before they worked out a deal with my insurance company. Once they did, my co-pay was over $200 per visit. Of course I didn't find this out until after several visits. What that have changed my behavior? Absolutely.

None of my points address how we ensure that poor people are provided with access to healthcare (medicaid or otherwise) but it would at least level the playing field. I understand it would raise the cost of employer provided healthcare and that it would help certain organizations and hurt others, but so be it. It would definitely prevent insurance companies from abandoning the exchanges as we are seeing now.

OdontoBear66;842849918 said:

---

So if you don't grab, it disappears? And where does it come from? Gov't gets its money from where? Unless printing funny money.

---

Obamacare got it with a marginal tax increase on high incomes. Pretty simple.

sycasey;842849922 said:

---

Obamacare got it with a marginal tax increase on high incomes. Pretty simple.

---

Your implication was it was free. We can argue if your answer is fair.

Unit2Sucks;842849919 said:

---

Like CB93 I don't think any of us are smart enough to fix healthcare. Also like CB93 I'm still going to offer my solution again (I have done so a few times). The key to affordable healthcare starts with increasing the size of the risk pool. Single-payer is great in that respect because it gets you the largest possible risk pool. I don't think that's necessary however to achieve a massive improvement.

I would make the following changes: (i) if an insurance provider offers a plan in a state, they have to offer that plan to everyone who wants it regardless of preexisting conditions and everyone pays the same price to the insurer (whether they are an individual, at a small employer or large employer) and (ii) "most favored nations" pricing for health care services. The two main points I am trying to address are having insurance work like insurance and reducing uncertainty around pricing so that people can decide up front whether to take on services. My urgent care provider initially charged $40 per visit before they worked out a deal with my insurance company. Once they did, my co-pay was over $200 per visit. Of course I didn't find this out until after several visits. What that have changed my behavior? Absolutely.

None of my points address how we ensure that poor people are provided with access to healthcare (medicaid or otherwise) but it would at least level the playing field. I understand it would raise the cost of employer provided healthcare and that it would help certain organizations and hurt others, but so be it. It would definitely prevent insurance companies from abandoning the exchanges as we are seeing now.

---

In your middle paragraph you have struck on what I consider is an absolutely essential component---participation on the part of the patient in payment. It is not the amount. It is the fact that the patient pays. Once that happens, the patient makes value judgments for him/her. Lo' and behold, the start of cost containment. So for even the poorest of the poor, it need only be enough to have them peruse their bill and decide if they wish to go ahead, or to look back and see if that service was fair.

OdontoBear66;842849936 said:

---

Your implication was it was free. We can argue if your answer is fair.

---

I explained that. It's "free" to the state governments. Doesn't require them to cut anything or raise their own taxes to pay for it. Already covered by federal taxes.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history.html

I agree with you Odonto, but when you look at where the real costs in the healthcare system, it's not really about value judgments. I mean sure, I wouldn't pay $200 to have urgent care clean up my kid's wound and slap a bandage on it but I don't think that's where the meaningful expenditures are. 32% of US healthcare costs are from hospital care. 20% is from physician and clinical services. 10% is prescription drugs. 6% is insurance spread and 5% is from investment. So that covers approximately 3/4 of healthcare expenditures. (here's my source by the way).

Everyone always points to unnecessary tests as a huge burden or other malpractice imposed constraints, but I think it's really just the fact that hospital care and physician services are expensive and at the end of life and for people with serious medical problems, the price can be extraordinarily high. Like several hundred thousand for a life-saving procedure that is not something that people would reasonably choose to forgo. And of course we all know how much healthcare spend is on end of life scenarios. I'm still waiting for the death panels that republicans promised us, but that's a different topic.

Oh and please don't get me started on the malpractice canard. I don't know how much malpractice insurance costs, but the actual expense of malpractice payouts to the healthcare industry is quite small - on the order of $10 per capita.

You do have to think of the healthcare issue in light of what we can or cannot afford. Things are turning bleak in the budgets of many states. Illinois is on the verge of junk bond status. Now Connecticut and New Jersey are but a bit behind. Notice the commonality of the three states. Where are we going in this society with providing things we think are essential needs with projections that turn out understated and which lead to deep financial problems for the future? And I can talk comfortably of this for my concern is for our kids and grandkids, certainly not myself. That indebtedness will not touch me in my lifetime. What can you say about yourself? I would have loved a real nice car out of dental school in 1966 befitting my new found status as a doctor, but it would have been the worst decision possible at that time.

And do not mistake that I argue just cut social benefits and build the military with those dollars saved. Not so. In this the Repubs are as wrong as the Dems. Quite frankly we would probably benefit financially if we paid them the same and had them work one quarter of the hours. JMHO

Every other first-world nation provides health care to all its citizens in some fashion. If they can afford it, we can afford it.

It's just a question of where your priorities lie.

sycasey;842850019 said:

---

Every other first-world nation provides health care to all its citizens in some fashion. If they can afford it, we can afford it.

It's just a question of where your priorities lie.

---

Sounds honorable. Just, in the system where we have obligatory outgo already, show me where. How about combining some entitlement with HSAs and with traditional insurance. In the last eight years count the trillions we have added to the national debt as a barometer of spending. Where does it end? Or does it?

OdontoBear66;842850034 said:

---

Sounds honorable. Just, in the system where we have obligatory outgo already, show me where. How about combining some entitlement with HSAs and with traditional insurance. In the last eight years count the trillions we have added to the national debt as a barometer of spending. Where does it end? Or does it?

---

Wasn't the amount added to the debt entirely from the financial bailout and economic stimulus? I don't think Obamacare specifically added to the deficit. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

sycasey;842850039 said:

---

Wasn't the amount added to the debt entirely from the financial bailout and economic stimulus? I don't think Obamacare specifically added to the deficit. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

---

Obamacare reduced the debt due to its taxes that Republicans hate. Most of the debt increase during the Obama years was due to the economic slowdown and legislation already in place. About $1 trillion was from the stimulus and some additional was from extending some Bush tax cuts, which Republicans supported and wanted to do more of.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-council-member's-solution-to-his-ohio-city's-overdose-problem-let-addicts-die/ar-BBDpMiA?li=BBnb7Kz

Interesting debate on how best to help people that are burdening a local government.

Odonto - please explain how HSAs help provide access to healthcare. As far as I can tell, HSAs are just a tax break for who don't need it. The people who are currently relying on Obamacare (or uninsured) don't need tax breaks.