Ninety seven million people signed up for Medicaid last year, so this
is not really allowing people to buy affordable care, it is free
health care, that we do not actually pay for. We borrow the money from
our kids.
When CBO says the proposed changes will cause 24 million to "lose"
health care they don't say that 19 million of them will simply choose
not to buy it because they dropped the mandate. At a certain point,
when they come back with a "pre existing condition" or just show up
sick, **** them. If they are really poor, they got medicaid anyway and
if they had the money and chose to buy "stuff" with it instead of
insurance, go bankrupt and lose that "stuff".
We won't replace your house or your car if you refuse to insure it.

On 7/25/17 11:04 AM, wrote:
Ninety seven million people signed up for Medicaid last year, so this
is not really allowing people to buy affordable care, it is free
health care, that we do not actually pay for. We borrow the money from
our kids.
When CBO says the proposed changes will cause 24 million to "lose"
health care they don't say that 19 million of them will simply choose
not to buy it because they dropped the mandate. At a certain point,
when they come back with a "pre existing condition" or just show up
sick, **** them. If they are really poor, they got medicaid anyway and
if they had the money and chose to buy "stuff" with it instead of
insurance, go bankrupt and lose that "stuff".
We won't replace your house or your car if you refuse to insure it.



Your only significant and revealing post to date in our national
provision of health care challenge:

"At a certain point, when they come back with a "pre existing condition"
or just show up sick, **** them."

"**** them." How very Republican Libertarian of you.

Eligibility for Medicaid is, for the most part, determined by means. If
you cannot afford medical bills or medical insurance, you might be able
to qualify for Medicaid.

Private medical insurance that actually covers the cost of decent care
is very expensive and has been for many decade. The Republican babble
about free markets driving down the cost of health insurance and making
it more competitive is nothing more than right-wing bull****. I doubt
there is a modern country on the face of the earth where the "free
market" and "competition" are in play in keeping down costs of medical
insurance to consumers.

The private health insurance industry does nothing to contain costs. It
needs to be replaced.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:25:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/25/17 11:04 AM, wrote:
Ninety seven million people signed up for Medicaid last year, so this
is not really allowing people to buy affordable care, it is free
health care, that we do not actually pay for. We borrow the money from
our kids.
When CBO says the proposed changes will cause 24 million to "lose"
health care they don't say that 19 million of them will simply choose
not to buy it because they dropped the mandate. At a certain point,
when they come back with a "pre existing condition" or just show up
sick, **** them. If they are really poor, they got medicaid anyway and
if they had the money and chose to buy "stuff" with it instead of
insurance, go bankrupt and lose that "stuff".
We won't replace your house or your car if you refuse to insure it.



Your only significant and revealing post to date in our national
provision of health care challenge:

"At a certain point, when they come back with a "pre existing condition"
or just show up sick, **** them."

"**** them." How very Republican Libertarian of you.


I notice you trimmed the part where I said to make them financially
liable for their treatment.

Eligibility for Medicaid is, for the most part, determined by means. If
you cannot afford medical bills or medical insurance, you might be able
to qualify for Medicaid.

Private medical insurance that actually covers the cost of decent care
is very expensive and has been for many decade. The Republican babble
about free markets driving down the cost of health insurance and making
it more competitive is nothing more than right-wing bull****. I doubt
there is a modern country on the face of the earth where the "free
market" and "competition" are in play in keeping down costs of medical
insurance to consumers.

The private health insurance industry does nothing to contain costs. It
needs to be replaced.

That is going a lot farther than your "single payer" plan then isn't
it. Would your wife be happy to be a government doctor, making a set
wage that would have to be lower if we really wanted to cut costs.
Would you want to go to a government doctor?
You will end up with 2 tiers of medical care, like UK.
We are actually moving that way anyhow.

BTW there is not really any competition in the health care business
except in procedures that are not covered by insurance like Lasik
surgery.
Those prices are lower than what happens in "insured" care.
There is also pressure to limit the number of providers by the
doctor's union. (AMA)

On 7/25/17 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:25:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/25/17 11:04 AM, wrote:
Ninety seven million people signed up for Medicaid last year, so this
is not really allowing people to buy affordable care, it is free
health care, that we do not actually pay for. We borrow the money from
our kids.
When CBO says the proposed changes will cause 24 million to "lose"
health care they don't say that 19 million of them will simply choose
not to buy it because they dropped the mandate. At a certain point,
when they come back with a "pre existing condition" or just show up
sick, **** them. If they are really poor, they got medicaid anyway and
if they had the money and chose to buy "stuff" with it instead of
insurance, go bankrupt and lose that "stuff".
We won't replace your house or your car if you refuse to insure it.



Your only significant and revealing post to date in our national
provision of health care challenge:

"At a certain point, when they come back with a "pre existing condition"
or just show up sick, **** them."

"**** them." How very Republican Libertarian of you.


I notice you trimmed the part where I said to make them financially
liable for their treatment.


As I stated, most people on Medicaid do not have the means to be
"financially liable" for medical treatment.




That is going a lot farther than your "single payer" plan then isn't
it. Would your wife be happy to be a government doctor, making a set
wage that would have to be lower if we really wanted to cut costs.

My wife worked as a "government" psychotherapist at the state and county
government level, and was offered a "government" job when she got her
M.S. and another "government" job when she got her doctorate. She didn't
go into her field for the money or turn down government employment
because of the money.


Would you want to go to a government doctor?

If the doctor were competent, of course.

You will end up with 2 tiers of medical care, like UK.
We are actually moving that way anyhow.

BTW there is not really any competition in the health care business

And there won't be under a so-called "free market" health care system.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:14:18 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/25/17 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:25:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/25/17 11:04 AM, wrote:
Ninety seven million people signed up for Medicaid last year, so this
is not really allowing people to buy affordable care, it is free
health care, that we do not actually pay for. We borrow the money from
our kids.
When CBO says the proposed changes will cause 24 million to "lose"
health care they don't say that 19 million of them will simply choose
not to buy it because they dropped the mandate. At a certain point,
when they come back with a "pre existing condition" or just show up
sick, **** them. If they are really poor, they got medicaid anyway and
if they had the money and chose to buy "stuff" with it instead of
insurance, go bankrupt and lose that "stuff".
We won't replace your house or your car if you refuse to insure it.



Your only significant and revealing post to date in our national
provision of health care challenge:

"At a certain point, when they come back with a "pre existing condition"
or just show up sick, **** them."

"**** them." How very Republican Libertarian of you.


I notice you trimmed the part where I said to make them financially
liable for their treatment.


As I stated, most people on Medicaid do not have the means to be
"financially liable" for medical treatment.


If you are on medicaid, you are covered so that is a red herring.
I was talking about people who can afford it and just choose not to,
(the 19 million who are covered by the mandate now that the CBO is
talking about)


That is going a lot farther than your "single payer" plan then isn't
it. Would your wife be happy to be a government doctor, making a set
wage that would have to be lower if we really wanted to cut costs.

My wife worked as a "government" psychotherapist at the state and county
government level, and was offered a "government" job when she got her
M.S. and another "government" job when she got her doctorate. She didn't
go into her field for the money or turn down government employment
because of the money.

I was talking about not having the choice.



Would you want to go to a government doctor?

If the doctor were competent, of course.

Hmm, one is wage limited and promoted based on time in grade vs
someone who gets paid for performance. Who do you think will be the
most qualified?


You will end up with 2 tiers of medical care, like UK.
We are actually moving that way anyhow.

BTW there is not really any competition in the health care business

And there won't be under a so-called "free market" health care system.

I agree I have not heard of anything out of the Democrats or the
Republicans but they are both bought and paid for by the health
provider, pharma, lawyer, insurance industry.
Nobody wants to derail the gravy train.

This was big pharma last time
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $2,069,203
2 Burr, Richard (R-NC) Senate $426,181
3 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $395,174
4 Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $388,896
5 Murray, Patty (D-WA) Senate $340,644
6 Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) House $334,900
7 McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $323,650
8 Blunt, Roy (R-MO) Senate $318,984
9 Trump, Donald (R) $296,877
10 Shimkus, John M (R-IL) House $295,940

This is health care professionals
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $10,155,044
2 Trump, Donald (R) $3,365,225
3 Sanders, Bernie (D) Senate $2,171,775
4 Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $1,925,846
5 Carson, Ben (R) $1,319,233
6 Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $1,258,363
7 Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) House $802,059
8 Paul, Rand (R-KY) Senate $609,288
9 Heck, Joe (R-NV) House $586,968
10 Bush, Jeb (R) $529,147

This is the insurance industry
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $2,492,387
2 Trump, Donald (R) $838,162
3 Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $669,427
4 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $666,849
5 Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $661,876
6 Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $626,163
7 Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) Senate $500,900
8 Toomey, Pat (R-PA) Senate $499,980
9 Bush, Jeb (R) $459,822
10 Burr, Richard (R-NC) Senate $442,675

This is the lawyers
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $38,472,821
2 Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) House $5,026,700
3 Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $3,048,307
4 Kander, Jason (D-MO) $2,758,826
5 Bush, Jeb (R) $2,587,389
6 McGinty, Katie (D-PA) $2,369,554
7 Harris, Kamala D (D-CA) $2,205,335
8 Bennet, Michael F (D-CO) Senate $2,092,897
9 Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) Senate $1,999,158
10 Trump, Donald (R) $1,906,181

Do you see a pattern there? Why would anyone think Hillary was going
to do anything. She was the biggest recipient of the bribes.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 23:49:05 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:14:18 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/25/17 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:25:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/25/17 11:04 AM, wrote:
Ninety seven million people signed up for Medicaid last year, so this
is not really allowing people to buy affordable care, it is free
health care, that we do not actually pay for. We borrow the money from
our kids.
When CBO says the proposed changes will cause 24 million to "lose"
health care they don't say that 19 million of them will simply choose
not to buy it because they dropped the mandate. At a certain point,
when they come back with a "pre existing condition" or just show up
sick, **** them. If they are really poor, they got medicaid anyway and
if they had the money and chose to buy "stuff" with it instead of
insurance, go bankrupt and lose that "stuff".
We won't replace your house or your car if you refuse to insure it.



Your only significant and revealing post to date in our national
provision of health care challenge:

"At a certain point, when they come back with a "pre existing condition"
or just show up sick, **** them."

"**** them." How very Republican Libertarian of you.


I notice you trimmed the part where I said to make them financially
liable for their treatment.


As I stated, most people on Medicaid do not have the means to be
"financially liable" for medical treatment.


If you are on medicaid, you are covered so that is a red herring.
I was talking about people who can afford it and just choose not to,
(the 19 million who are covered by the mandate now that the CBO is
talking about)


That is going a lot farther than your "single payer" plan then isn't
it. Would your wife be happy to be a government doctor, making a set
wage that would have to be lower if we really wanted to cut costs.

My wife worked as a "government" psychotherapist at the state and county
government level, and was offered a "government" job when she got her
M.S. and another "government" job when she got her doctorate. She didn't
go into her field for the money or turn down government employment
because of the money.

I was talking about not having the choice.



Would you want to go to a government doctor?

If the doctor were competent, of course.

Hmm, one is wage limited and promoted based on time in grade vs
someone who gets paid for performance. Who do you think will be the
most qualified?


You will end up with 2 tiers of medical care, like UK.
We are actually moving that way anyhow.

BTW there is not really any competition in the health care business

And there won't be under a so-called "free market" health care system.

I agree I have not heard of anything out of the Democrats or the
Republicans but they are both bought and paid for by the health
provider, pharma, lawyer, insurance industry.
Nobody wants to derail the gravy train.

This was big pharma last time
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $2,069,203
2 Burr, Richard (R-NC) Senate $426,181
3 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $395,174
4 Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $388,896
5 Murray, Patty (D-WA) Senate $340,644
6 Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) House $334,900
7 McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $323,650
8 Blunt, Roy (R-MO) Senate $318,984
9 Trump, Donald (R) $296,877
10 Shimkus, John M (R-IL) House $295,940

This is health care professionals
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $10,155,044
2 Trump, Donald (R) $3,365,225
3 Sanders, Bernie (D) Senate $2,171,775
4 Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $1,925,846
5 Carson, Ben (R) $1,319,233
6 Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $1,258,363
7 Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) House $802,059
8 Paul, Rand (R-KY) Senate $609,288
9 Heck, Joe (R-NV) House $586,968
10 Bush, Jeb (R) $529,147

This is the insurance industry
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $2,492,387
2 Trump, Donald (R) $838,162
3 Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $669,427
4 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $666,849
5 Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $661,876
6 Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $626,163
7 Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) Senate $500,900
8 Toomey, Pat (R-PA) Senate $499,980
9 Bush, Jeb (R) $459,822
10 Burr, Richard (R-NC) Senate $442,675

This is the lawyers
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $38,472,821
2 Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) House $5,026,700
3 Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $3,048,307
4 Kander, Jason (D-MO) $2,758,826
5 Bush, Jeb (R) $2,587,389
6 McGinty, Katie (D-PA) $2,369,554
7 Harris, Kamala D (D-CA) $2,205,335
8 Bennet, Michael F (D-CO) Senate $2,092,897
9 Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) Senate $1,999,158
10 Trump, Donald (R) $1,906,181

Do you see a pattern there? Why would anyone think Hillary was going
to do anything. She was the biggest recipient of the bribes.

Unreal. Thanks for digging that up. Hard to believe she still lost.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 07:26:59 -0400, John H
wrote:


I agree I have not heard of anything out of the Democrats or the
Republicans but they are both bought and paid for by the health
provider, pharma, lawyer, insurance industry.
Nobody wants to derail the gravy train.

This was big pharma last time
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $2,069,203
2 Burr, Richard (R-NC) Senate $426,181
3 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $395,174
4 Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $388,896
5 Murray, Patty (D-WA) Senate $340,644
6 Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) House $334,900
7 McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $323,650
8 Blunt, Roy (R-MO) Senate $318,984
9 Trump, Donald (R) $296,877
10 Shimkus, John M (R-IL) House $295,940

This is health care professionals
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $10,155,044
2 Trump, Donald (R) $3,365,225
3 Sanders, Bernie (D) Senate $2,171,775
4 Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $1,925,846
5 Carson, Ben (R) $1,319,233
6 Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $1,258,363
7 Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) House $802,059
8 Paul, Rand (R-KY) Senate $609,288
9 Heck, Joe (R-NV) House $586,968
10 Bush, Jeb (R) $529,147

This is the insurance industry
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $2,492,387
2 Trump, Donald (R) $838,162
3 Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $669,427
4 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $666,849
5 Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $661,876
6 Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $626,163
7 Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) Senate $500,900
8 Toomey, Pat (R-PA) Senate $499,980
9 Bush, Jeb (R) $459,822
10 Burr, Richard (R-NC) Senate $442,675

This is the lawyers
1 Clinton, Hillary (D) $38,472,821
2 Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) House $5,026,700
3 Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $3,048,307
4 Kander, Jason (D-MO) $2,758,826
5 Bush, Jeb (R) $2,587,389
6 McGinty, Katie (D-PA) $2,369,554
7 Harris, Kamala D (D-CA) $2,205,335
8 Bennet, Michael F (D-CO) Senate $2,092,897
9 Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) Senate $1,999,158
10 Trump, Donald (R) $1,906,181

Do you see a pattern there? Why would anyone think Hillary was going
to do anything. She was the biggest recipient of the bribes.

Unreal. Thanks for digging that up. Hard to believe she still lost.

Opensecrets.org rolls up all of the FEC reports and lets you search
them in various ways. You can see where the money comes from and where
it goes. It explains a lot.