LDS Idaho Rep is an idiot with a sack of potatoes where his brains should be.

Typical GOP kneejerk Mormon position.

Likewise, he has blood on his hands.

You shouldn't insult the sack or potatoes like that.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-rep-nobody-dies-from-not-having-health-care/ar-BBAOBDw?li=BBnb7Kz

Check out the comments about this !!

You can rest assured that his dumb remark will bedevil him for the rest of his days in politics.

Not in Idaho, Shummy. Anywhere else, but not Idaho.

It's still one of the most backwards states in the Union, especially throughout the Morridor.

Mostly conservative LDS. They are blindsided by GOP politics.

Don't be too sure that the folks in North Central Idaho (where I live) will support Labrador (dumb dog - no offense to dogs).

Progressives, liberals, Democrats are alive and well, in Latah County, and with remarks like his, Nez Perce County may well decide to elect a Dem in 2018.

Mormons don't have even a decent minority in this part of the state. It's SE Idaho that most resembles Utah and its backward ideas.

People die because they don't have access to the medical care that they need.

Usually, this is because medical care is so frightfully expensive. That's why we have medical insurance: to help offset the costs.

It's when the cost of the insurance itself - especially the better plans, with low deductibles and low co-pays - is so high. As usual, "them that has, gets."

After thirty years with Social Security, seeing people out of work for some reason or other, and therefore, without insurance (because I think that most people get medical insurance through employment), in desperate need of medical help, I am a big supporter of NHS.

Classic case: A person who can't work because of a mental illness. Denied for disability because "our records indicate that when you take your medication, you function normally." But without income from work, the person cannot obtain the necessary medication. This is SO unnecessary: a person who could and should be part of the workforce, except that there is no way for them to obtain the medication that would make it possible. I have seen this situation played out too many times to count. It is totally irresponsible and should not happen.

Mormon Church doctrine and practice on matters related to health insurance:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1973932
-----

Now, for some findings on the relationship between the lack of health insurance and death rates:

"Observational studies have found increased mortality among uninsured adults relative to their insured peers with specific conditions such as cancer, myocardial infarction, or HIV infection, but only two national studies have compared all-cause mortality among insured and uninsured people. Furthermore, both of these national studies ended seventeen years ago, and subsequent advances in medical care may have improved outcomes among people with better access to health services."

http://m.content.healthaffairs.org/content/23/4/223.full



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2017 01:14AM by steve benson.

Raul is dumber than a Labrador.

How did he manage to get elected for a 4th term!??

Well, I think he should lead the way and go without, then. Show us how it's done.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2017 01:13AM by summer.

If someone doesn't have health insurance or does have it, but it stopped paying for half of the things it used to, and they die because they were denied care or couldn't afford it, then what does he call that? If you can't pay for or are denied a transplant or " unnecessary surgery ", and you die, as a result, what's that then?

The same official who tells his constituents "healthcare is not a basic human right," it's called "kiss my ass legislation, as you kiss yours goodbye."

When I was 15, I watched my father become very weak, then be confined to bed, gradually fade into coma and die. In less than a month.

This was because of a kidney condition that runs rampant in our family. I'm still around because it treats women differently. Granted, she died of renal failure, but she made it to 93. Dad was only 42.

My son will be 41 on his next birthday. He has the illness, confirmed for sure. Sooner or later, his kidneys WILL shut down. The only treatment options are transplant, with immune-suppressant drugs, or dialysis several times a week, forever.

If these two options are not available through his insurance, will I have to watch him die by agonizing degrees, just as I did with my father?

Hospice care was not widely known in the early 60s, so we created a do-it-yourself hospice for Dad. My grandmother (his mother), and my mother (both RNs) and ignoramus me. I learned how to discontinue an IV when it ran out. We had 8-hour shifts.

He had made it very plain that he wanted to doe at home (since there wasn't anything more they could do at the hospital anyway), so we made it happen.

The thought of having to care for my dying son - because Trump has taken away his insurance - well, it's pretty bad. Hospice care is covered under Medicare Part A regardless of age, but my son's earnings have been pretty spotty - a lot of self-employment and I'm pretty sure that - despite my urging - he has not filed his taxes for the pertinent years, and will not be covered for Medicare.

The uninsured don't go the doctor until they have one foot in the grave. Then taxpayers foot the sky high medical cost or the other foot follows. Sometimes both.

What they should really do is legalize competition. Give RNs permission to run certain kinds of clinics, for example, and let midwives deliver babies and do prenatal care. Show me one doctor that can't be replaced by technology. They might as well be, for the amount of time they see you. The system we have now is legalized racketeering.

When I was in Italy many years ago, I had a cold - followed by a naggy cough (I have always had these after colds) that just went on and on and on. Not only was it annoying to me, but to my fellow tourists as well.

One of the friends I had made on the tour - an RN - suggested that I visit a local pharmacy while we were in Venice. I did so, and between my limping Italian and the cough itself (deep and nasty-sounding), the pharmacist gave me a medication called "Sobrepin," to be taken three times a day, with food, for 3 days. It cost me about $22 when I translated it from Euros.

I could feel improvement within 24 hours. At the end of the 3 days, the cough was gone. I didn't have to try to find a doctor, I just found a competent pharmacist.

I have since talked to my pharmacists here. One told me, "We are trained to treat minor illnesses. We just aren't allowed to do so because of licensing limitations."

This seems so ignorant to me. When I was able to get a one-stop cure for a vicious cough in Italy, why can't I do it here???

If RNs and pharmacists were allowed to treat more people (within the scope of their training, of course), we would immediately broaden our supply of providers, people wouldn't have to wait for ages to see their doctor, and it seems to me we would get much better, faster service.

It's not just theory. I experienced it myself. And I was very much impressed.

Babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The uninsured don't go the doctor until they have
> one foot in the grave.

In the US? LOL, um, no. The poor are on Medicaid. And it is easier than ever to access that entitlement. Some people use emergency rooms, but that is another topic.

Don't get me wrong; health care is broke in this country. It needs to be fixed and those that need care should get it. But this narrative that people are dropping dead because they cannot get necessary therapies, surgeries, etc., is complete bullcrap. Some, probably most, people who pass along that notion are well meaning, but misinformed. Some know damn well that it is a complete lie, but since it is a convenient one, they still use it. I'm seeing both flavors in this thread.

If health care is a basic human right, can anyone who believes that propose a way to pay for universal and equal healthcare for all? I am not disagreeing with that idea, just asking the question about how to make it happen.

Has anyone here looked lately to see how socialism is currently working out in Venesuela? Venesuela is one of the most oil-wealthy nations in the world now. The wealth of our human society right now comes primarily from oil. People are now starving on a mass scale in Venesuela. They've got their socialist society when they should be wealthier than the US (per capita).

If we greatly expand our economy, give jobs and increased opportunities to everyone who can work. Make those opportunities available exclusively to those who have a right to live and work here, and let big-business make some profits - but only if they can produce specific desirable results, then we won't have to fight over what little of the leftover scraps of our society is available to pay for health care, like Venesuela is doing now, just to get daily food to survive. Healthcare will be available to everyone if our society has a way to pay for it.

or, we can live by a dysfunctional ideaology founded by Saul Alinsky (research Hillary's and Obama's links to Saul Alinsky, and what he believes). Do anything possible to prevent those greedy-bastard republicans from gaining control or making any profits. Venesuela, here we come. If a person can't be right about our political beliefs, should they settle for dead and right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2017 10:41AM by azsteve.

How about taking the trillions of $$ insurance company profits out of the loop? It's called a single-payer system.

I'm sure you are capable of finding their financials, but here's the short version:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/health-insurance-industry-rakes-in-billions-while-blaming-obamacare-for-losses-110116.html


You would think that people would learn not to believe everything the ringmasters want you to believe.

If you think that it's not "trillions," do the research on the last five years. Them that buy the ads, fake-make the news, especially, when it's being reported by a politician.

I'm amazed when an exmo is disinterested in the financials, which tell more of the actual facts than any yammering Q.

You are comparing the U.S. to a third world country, when a better comparison would be to first world countries with single payer systems such as Canada, Great Britain, Australia, etc.

Presently, that is indeed not a fair comparison. However, some on the far left would love nothing more for than the US to adopt the Marxist policies of Venezuela. Think about it for a moment.

Following town hall backlash, Labrador says health care comment ‘wasn’t very elegant’

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/article149149844.html#storylink=mainstage

I think that more Americans right now are worried about the death of their own financial estate, more-so than dieing themselves from preventable medical issues. Most people who do not pay medical premiums now, do so with the knowledge that the hospitals won't let them die for lack of ability to pay if they need life-saving help. Let's say that you knew that one year from now that you would definitely die of a curable medical problem, if you didn't pay medical premiums now. How many people would then opt to noy pay?

An unexpected trip to the hospital can wipe out your financial estate. Even if you're covered the hospital-stay co-pay and other expenses can be huge for an insured person. If you can't pay, then the cost or ability to finance a new car or a new home can be blocked, or you get much higher interest rates.

Take an amount that you think should be a reasonable market rate for insurance when averaging out everyone. Then multiply that amount by 350 million (roughly the population of the US now). If that amount of money doesn't exist as available in the economy now, then what do you do? 1.) Have the government take the money away by force, from those who have it as Venesuela has done recently. 2.) Start letting people die from lack of money to care for them. 3.) Print ourselves in to further poverty by printing more money. 4.).grow the economy enough to pay the increased costs as a complete solution.

A legislated redistribution of wealth can not solve this problem. It has only made things worse for more people in the long run.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2017 12:13PM by azsteve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> A legislated redistribution of wealth can not
> solve this problem. It has only made things worse
> for more people in the long run.



You are wed to a false ideology of our economy.

You ask, "How do we pay the insurance bills for 350m people?

Well, that would be expensive, indeed. As you say, likely, undoable. It includes buying a LOT of stuff that has nothing to do with medical treatment.


The question that any person IN A FREE MARKET would ask, is, how much would THE ACTUAL MEDICAL CARE cost?


Forgive me for shouting, but for as much as you go on and on about "redristribution of wealth," I would ask you to check the purchases made by the "Fund" company holdings of your 401k, if you have one. If you do have one, it is almost guaranteed that it owns pieces of the health insurance "industrial complex," and that those Funds have grown.

Yes, that's right. You have likely profited from "wealth redistribution," delivered to you not by the government, but by the health insurance companies themselves.

And where is it written that medicals services can ONLY be purchased by consumers via a health "insurance fund?"

That is where your arguments fail. Buying INSURANCE saves no one's life, while buying MEDICAL CARE saves millions of lives. You insist on a middle-man. WHY??? Why is THIS form of "wealth redristrubution" acceptable to you??

Conditioning.

You are conditioned to believe that the ONLY path to the CK of medical treatment is through the veil of an insurer.

Insurers are historically and currently the governing body of the medical care delivered in the US, via funding. Do you really believe that medical care has evolved anything like a "free market?" Even close to one?

Wow ! - shocker writes you, you, you, like he or she knows everything about me, from just a few statements. The redistribution of wealth through health care extortion (ie: obamacare) is immoral. I don't even have a 401K.

A lot is wrong with our current financial system. But the last thing we should sink to is redistribution of any kind. Healthcare should be simple. Providers can operate anywhere in the US but must maintain adequate reserves. The sum of premiums minus claims paid are the profits for the insurer. End of equasion. Free market rules. Those who are truely disabled are supported by medicare or medicaid.

Any time Paul Ryan is happy and smiling, I get really worried. For those who are paying attention, it's clear that Trump doesn't really like Ryan either. Trump appears to be just going along to get along for now. At some point, Trump will be able to say "even with my support, the American people don't want this GOP insurance plan". When push comes to shove around mid-term election time I think we'll see the Trump we all know from the pre-election days return. Bush told Trump that "you can't insult your way to the presidency". That's exactly what Trump did end up doing. Eventually after he has been nice and accommodating long enough and it is clear that he made every reasonable attempt to compromise, I would like to see Trump bullying and shaming those senators and congressmen publicly, who are currently selling-out our country to special intrests and to people who pay them. Most of the Democrats will go down with their ship (platform). But a lot of the republicans that follow Paul Ryan and other corrupt Republicans will fall in to line around election time when Trump starts calling them out and making up names for them publicly.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2017 08:35AM by azsteve.

The pre-election Trump that was roasted by Gilbert Godfried?

I eagerly await his return.

"The sum of premiums minus claims paid are the profits for the insurer."

Which is why our for-profit capitalist insurance companies remorselessly collect premiums, AND ALSO remorselessly look for ways to deny claims on any excuse, or even better (before the ACA) to refuse to cover an individual altogether if they had so much as one "negative" in their health background.

Aetna, United, the Blues --- their job isn't to be anyone's healthcare friend, but to maximize profits for the shareholders, and hence pay for the top executives.

There's a reason why no developed nation in the world has emulated the accidentally-created, inefficient, casually brutal, and very expensive American system of health care delivery and insurance. Not one, and none ever will.

Until the Chargemaster system is addressed aggressively, it is never going to get better. Sadly, neither ObunglesCare nor TrumpCare addresses that.

If someone is really sick, or elderly, the last thing they need is to try and figure out all the small print and comparison shop through various insurance providers and rules in this state or that state.

People think they won't get sick. People don't get around to studying all the issues and policies. They won't have any idea what was omitted when they picked one that they could actually afford.

Health care is not the same thing as shopping for a car.

All this seems to be about making sure insurance companies profit. It's about the corporation after all. Remember, corporations are people too (apparently more important than real people).

I get a "notice" every few months from my property or car insurers letting me know one more little thing they won't cover. Can you imagine trying to deal with all their little loop holes if you are ill or elderly? Preapproval rules, generic drug rules, provider rules and endless other rules will apply, I'm sure.

With all the problems that come with a one-payer system, I'd risk that than dealing with insurance companies. IMO, it's time to stand up for people instead of insurance company shenanigans and big pharma. I work for a big pharma company and am ashamed to say they are all about charging as much as they can and preventing competitors while they make millions trying to take over other companies. I HATE the way my company makes the rules about my health care because they provide insurance.

I've become disillusioned with capitalism, but that's probably the best there is. I don't know the answers but that Representatives comments were outrageous.

I say that all the old white men who are making the laws need to be off the government insurance plans that tax payers have provided for them to access. They need to be cut loose to deal with insurance companies like the people they are hurting.

The US being the only industrialized country without universal healthcare would be something to be proud of if the US system worked. It doesn't, but it isn't really capitalism. Unless you think cronyism and corruption are normal parts of capitalism.

I'm afraid it might be normal, like in any other system.

If government gets too powerful, that's a problem. If corporations get too powerful, that's a problem.

It seems to be harder to vote out corporate power than it is to vote out government every four years.

I hope capitalism can work to solve this. I'm hopeful. Still, using corporations that are about profits for the top executives don't give me a lot of confidence that people will be treated fairly.

I wonder why no one has brought up the Scandinavian/Nordic model. They use a hybrid rather than Capitalism or Socialism. Very strong safety net plus market values. They are nothing like Venezuela. The results are nothing like Venezuela.

Health care is not a "free market" and never was.

Dave the Atheist - Correct! There are no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn't work. People who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence. They lie!!!

Developed Countries with universal health care include Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Brunei, Canada, Cyrus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom!

Why aren't we among them? As Always, tnurg (GRUNT)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2017 04:43PM by tnurg.

This is what an alt-right conservative operative who is nothing more than a big money stooge does to defend the indefensible as he sabotages his political career! He's lying through his teeth like so many GOP enemies of the people do these days! Sadly, it's the norm under donald trump! It's is quite clear that Our Democratic Republic is under serious assault from powerful domestic/foreign enemies! He/his anarchist accomplices have no shame! Very little he says anymore is on the up/up as he/his complicit cohorts continue to insult our intelligence! It's time for honest citizens to take back their Government! Good bye - Good bye! As Always, tnurg (GRUNT)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2017 03:59PM by tnurg.

He said people don't die from lack of health CARE.

Even more egregious...

He's an idiot - and there are too many of them in legislatures.

The LDS Rep. is right -- people do NOT die from lack of health insurance!

They die from the lack of adequate health care that is the RESULT of not having health insurance in a country that has priced reasonable health care too high for normal people to afford.


They are still dead, nonetheless, and it is wrong, WRONG, WRONG!

I'm not saying that it is easy, but is it worth it?


When I hear people question how this is going to be paid for I wonder. Do you have any idea the per capita cost that is being paid right now? $10,000 per person or three trillion dollars. Is being paid into the system from the various parties whether it be private, corporate, or government. From a macro point of view, the overall value of health care will grow proportionally with our overall ability to pay for it. Since we are in a quasi subsidised system there isn't necessarily a cap. This puts us in a bad place, no inherent inhibitors means our free market system cannot operate. Or at least until the last few years when the system as started to crumble from internal weight.

It is silly to continue to support a system which is inherently flawed. Particularly one which is allowed to ignore basic principles of economy. It is even sillier to support a system on the basis of you don't know a better way.

I am of the opinion that if Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, and other nations are able to provide better quality healthcare at a lower cost than we should be able to as well.

That is just my two cents. Sorry for not putting Mormonism in this.

They don't have American greed.

Maybe Idaho is such an affluent place that it doesn't happen there (though I doubt it). I invite the guy to visit southern California to find out just how wrong he is.

Ever heard of the AMA, catnip?

I don't trust the party that sanctions the murder of unborn children, to not kill the sick and elderly through death panels that will decide who is worth treating, and who we can afford to treat. It's worse in an economy based on dis-incentives that cause the economy to fail under socialism, imposed (if they can) by the alt-left. So I get to keep my existing plan and keep my Doctor too. The congressional budget office knew full well that Obama Care would not allow that promise to be fulfilled for everyone who they tried to get everyone to vote for it. That's called lieing. They promised too, no death panels. Should we trust them?

I agree that corporate greed is bad and needs to be rained-in, except in those cases where it actually produces real economic growth for everyone. But people willingly work longer and harder, and innovate more, and take more risks, when they struggle to escape poverty (take night classes after working all day, spend frugally, start a business, etc.) for themselves and their society. Too many entitlements to those who are healthy and can work, will kill an economy. Why even work at all, when everything you need to survive is considered to be a basic human right for you to have?

Whether or not Venesuela is comparable to the USA because it is a third-world country to begin with, completely misses the point. It's an oil-rich country and should be wealthy if not for the socialism that has recently wrecked their economy. The large social rift here in the USA over partison politics is killing us also. Too many people on the left would rather see our country go down the tubes completely right now, if that is what is required to prevent Donald Trump from succeeding at anything that is good for the US. That's really really messed up.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2017 04:45AM by azsteve.