Exclusive – Sen. Rand Paul: Senate GOP Decides to Keep Obamacare

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Again...

I have never and am not now demanding any products or services from anyone -- especially not at anyone else's expense. Period.

I am demanding that OUR absolute inalienable right to provide for ourselves -- specifically, medical care -- be respected and protected.

Government intervention and interference is in the way and is unacceptable.

And I will take it one step further... right now, as we argue, government is in fact taking the hard-earned tax dollars of folks who cannot even afford healthcare to fund the MANY health-related programs the government offers. And, in effect, taking from the poor to give to the rich. So in reality, what you are arguing against is already happening.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

No, I stopped reading because it became clear you were not engaging in anything but emotional blackmail. You want me to agree and will use that tactic in order to make disagreeing seem morally repugnant.

Emotional blackmail??? Oh my dear Lord. Emotional appeal maybe... but who could I possibly be trying to blackmail? And how??? What exactly did I threaten if someone didn't do what???

Quite frankly, I don't want you to "agree". I wish you would look at the facts, then recognize the obvious natural repercussions and inevitable outcomes. But you see one subjective comment and that's it for you? Okay.

And for the record, I do know of a woman who died not in the streets, but in the parking lot at her office, for lack of affordable healthcare... a UTI that turned into a kidney infection. And the freaking saddest part of all -- at least to me -- is that a $20 bottle of colloidal silver could have cleared that infection up in a jiffy....

So you call it emotional blackmail if you want and turn a blind eye. I'll call it what it is: Cruel and sadistic.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: SeaWorthy

You have the inalienable right to the pursuit, not the attainment, of happiness. Whether you achieve said happiness is irrelevant to your inalienable right; whether the pursuit is difficult is not the role of the government to subsidize or "fix."

The role of the government is not for a lot of things that it is doing and using your money for. It awes me that this is ok by you. You seem to want to be a worm and let them be the Robin. Unless of course, you are one of those Robins.

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: Boadicea

Gah.

I really hate this.

We need to shrink big govt and get the money back to the people. When we are able to pick and choose with our own money the prices will drop. We are just letting these industries set the price and force us to pay.

Or you could join the rest of the 1st world (and a lot of the 2nd world) and go for socialized healthcare.

a reply to: GetHyped

Or you could join the rest of the 1st world (and a lot of the 2nd world) and go for socialized healthcare.

I think our best hope -- most practical and most cost effective -- is for both a public and private option. The competition would not only increase choices, affordability and availability, it would help keep everyone honest (not foolproof of course, but it would help). There are a jillion and one ways that the two could work together to provide affordable and accessible healthcare for all. And without the iron grip of crony capitalist rules and regs, it could be done in creative and innovative ways to provide more and better options.

But I honestly don't see that happening unless and until our priority and mission is health care, not health insurance. At this point, I just see everyone trying to make healthcare fit health insurance needs, when we should be trying to make health insurance fit healthcare needs... if that makes sense. Taking care of our bodies is our right, and must come first. (If we can't take care of our bodies, where will we live?)

We also need to better educate and inform folks on how to take care of themselves whenever and wherever they can, and reserve doctors for those times when we cannot take care of ourselves. The more empowered we are, the more resourceful and independent and strong we are.... and healthier!

a reply to: Boadicea

I have hope for you guys across the pond. I really do think the tide is turning with regards to the attitude towards universal healthcare

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: AboveBoard

Why not insurance? The costs of healthcare are astronomical- we should work on bringing those down - but they are what they are and to destabilize such a necessary industry is insane.

While your point about government subsidies for the greater good are well taken, in the case of healthcare, I would say that insurance is not the appropriate model for providing healthcare. At one time, when docs either fixed you up or you died, it may have been practical. But not today when so many health conditions are managed long-term rather than cured. People need healthcare -- not health insurance.

Nor can we ignore one of (if not thee) greatest costs in healthcare: Big Pharma monopolies.

Oh I agree with your point regarding healthcare.

Single payer as a universal option with private insurance still available for those who want it or who want to purchase "gap fillers" like people do on Medicare might be a better option as far as quality of care.

I've heard a conservative expert claim that the down side is how the current competition in the US system drives innovation and that we, and the rest of the the world, would lose that. I'm not sure I agree with that.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I've heard a conservative expert claim that the down side is how the current competition in the US system drives innovation and that we, and the rest of the the world, would lose that. I'm not sure I agree with that.

I'm not sure I can agree either... maybe once, but not in the current system.

Once upon a time, competition had to cater to the consumers and actually offer a better product or service... Current competition is all about who can rig the game better or buy off the most powerful congress critters.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Boadicea

I have hope for you guys across the pond. I really do think the tide is turning with regards to the attitude towards universal healthcare

It's almost too good to be true, but I'm cautiously optimistic as well. I've seen some folks considering new possibilities and looking at a bigger picture and thinking outside the box lately. It's a good sign.

a reply to: Boadicea

I think that we're on the same page, just got a miscommunication thrown in the mix somewhere.

But just to clarify, if you're interested: How are you proposing that our inalienable right to provide medical care for ourselves be protected? I mean, "medical care" covers a very broad range of avenues one can take to treat injuries and ailments, so what are you proposing the government do in order to protect that right?

I'm with you--gov't intervention and interference is the prime reason that medical care in our country is so expensive and, for a relatively small population, nearly impossible to obtain without it being a heavy or impossible financial burden. So, with that said, I'm curious as to how you see this right to self treatment (by whatever means...hospital, back-alley clinic, natural remedies, etc.) should be protected, as I think that's where the miscommunication is coming.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
The role of the government is not for a lot of things that it is doing and using your money for. It awes me that this is ok by you. You seem to want to be a worm and let them be the Robin. Unless of course, you are one of those Robins.

Seaworthy, when did I say that I am okay with the majority of what the federal government uses our tax dollars for? Before I even engage in discussion with you, I'd like to figure out where you found the foundation of your argument, because as it now stands, it appears that you know zero about my concern with income taxes, how much we are taxed, what the government spends that money on, and the like.

At least be honest and say that you're making assumptions so that we can continue this discussion in the realm of reality.

And what does your Robin/Worm analogy even mean? Are you trying to say that, since I don't want the federal gov't subsidizing my right to life that somehow I'm just a measly little worm waiting to be devoured by government? If so, again, I'm not sure that you quite understand what I've been talking about. Clarification would be much appreciated.

a reply to: Boadicea

Hmmm...I think that we semi-agree on the problem, just not the solution. Maybe.

I'm not sure who (maybe you?) clued me into this, but I think that it is Sweden or Switzerland (but not Swaziland...but one of those "Sw" countries) that has a universal BASIC health plan that the government provides to every individual. Anything above and beyond that wanted by the individual is a product purchased in the private sector.

My assumption would be that this basic plan would cover annual check-ups, normal male and female care necessities based on age and sex, and a few other basic things. I would also assume that supplemental plans would be necessary to cover/help with the cost of elongated hospital visits, emergency visits, and treatment for things found during the basic check-ups.

IF, and only if, our government could pull its head out of its ass, scrap nearly everything that it has on the books concerning health care/insurance (Medicaid, Medicare, PPACA, etc.) and replace with a system like this, I think that it would be relatively affordable to the taxpayer and, honestly, something that I could get behind, maybe even a slightly expanded version of what I just mentioned (like adding a slight subsidy of prescription costs or something, but I hate how drugged up America is, so I don't know...).

The problem lies with the Democrats on this one, to be honest. They are the "bleeding hearts" when it comes to what the government should provide to everyone, so getting a relatively bare-bones, basic health plan passed would be nearly impossible, and we'd go right back to the ads of people wanting to kill grandma and throw babies over cliffs and take away grandpa's pacemaker and watch him die.

I think that the first thing that our nation needs to get passed is the hyperbole that surrounds the healthcare debate, but that will never happen, and without ridding the conversation of that putrid cancer that kills all rationale, nothing that could actually work well for our nation will ever be decided upon and passed.

But, also, there's the issue with the government always wanting to expand programs as time goes on, so even if we did get a basic universal plan passed, it would get bastardized and destroyed as time went on, because it's never good enough to leave things alone, and the government has a tendency to want to create a dependency on their programs--they can't do that if they're not constantly injecting the needle of "free" stuff into the open arms of the public.

This is why I have come to the opinion that government-run healthcare and insurance programs cannot happen in the U.S.--a nation of 321-Million people. There will always be too many people unsatisfied with their slice of the pie and always screaming for more, and there are too many politicians willing to appease that crowd in exchange for votes.

*cough* term limits *cough*

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't want to hurry my answer, and I've got some things to do this morning,so I'll get back to you when I can give it some quality attention. I'd love to discuss the possibilities and potentials... I don't have all the answers but change has to start with ideas and discussion.

a reply to: Boadicea

Word. If you get to a thoughtful response, awesome. If life gets in the way, I fully understand.

Best Regards.

So what are the conservatives going to do, try to put crazier and meaner conservatives in office, that wont work.


Just accept the US doing, FINALLY, what every modern civilized country in the world does:


PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ITS CITIZENS

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thank you for your patience! And thank you for wanting to delve into this further with me

All of the above in your comment -- that's the truth. I don't think we'd be any better off with a government run healthcare system than a corporate run healthcare system. I especially don't think we're well served by the many many regs for our "protection" that actually serve monied interests most of all. And as you said, if we did adopt a basic universal health plan, we would eliminate the exponential costs of many health care programs we currently fund. So in terms of funding, I think we could actually do more with less with a basic universal health plan.

For the most part, I look at the public/private education model. I know -- it's been screwed up too! But it is a working model we can draw from. In my experience, public education went downhill when parents were taken out of the equation, both in terms of both parents now working, and in terms of educators cutting parents out of all decision making... "We're the professionals. We know best." Likewise, people have been cut out of their own health care choices and decision making more and more. Even worse, our doctors are being cut out of the decision-making by the pencil pushers sitting in insurance offices.

Look at Charlie Gard, who has my heart twisted in knots right now!!! What fricking right does a hospital or a government have to tell the parents they CANNOT seek other treatment? None! It's not their dime. It's not their life. It's not their anything. But they won't even give that baby a chance to find other treatment from willing providers.

So I think we need to start with a Patients' Bill of Rights, that will put health first, and allow patients to make their own decisions both with and without their doctors. Then we go from there.

I think a public/private option could be combined as well, much like school vouchers that allow kids to attend private schools and charter schools, with the parents covering the difference out of pocket. Doctors could be reimbursed a flat fee for patient visits, and doctors could charge a little more to the patients willing to pay it.

I also think we could greatly expand the points of delivery, from school nurses offices to drug store clinics, etc. We could use our current technology for doctor "appointments" along the lines of phone/email consultations and even Skype or Facetime appointments. We could allow Nurse Practitioners and Physicians assistants to handle more of the basic healthcare needs, reserving doctors for more serious cases. I think the free market and lots of innovative people could come up with even more and probably better.

We could also convert more prescription drugs to OTC drugs. So the mom who knows her kid has an ear infection doesn't have to take time off from work to take her kid to the doctor and pay for a visit just to be told what she already knows in order to get the medicine he needs. Amoxicillin and Bactrim are fairly safe (barring any allergies!).

We also need to break the stranglehold of Big Pharma, and research and promote cheap, often readily available natural remedies. Cannabis products, of course. But also things like colloidal silver and other natural antibiotics like olive leaf extract or oregano oil. Aloe Vera is amazing for lots of things from burns and other skin conditions, to upset tummies and constipation, even irritable bowel syndrome. And good old-fashioned vitamins like C and D and niacinamide. We spend an awful lot of hard-earned tax dollars on research that benefits the deep pockets far more than us. Sure, that $1000 bottle of pills might do the trick... but so might that $20 bottle of colloidal silver. But neither Big Pharma nor the FDA has any interest in studying silver and its efficacy -- or any medicine that cannot be patented and monopolized. That needs to change.

And, of course, we also need to educate the people, and by doing so they can nip small problems in the bud before it progresses to a point that more complex and more invasive procedures are necessary. We can start in school with better health and nutrition classes, as well as classes for new moms and dads, we can do PSAs anywhere and everywhere, printed sheets/brochures with healthcare information, create websites with information... Basically teach people when and how to take care of their own bodies whenever possible, and when we need to turn to professionals.

Don't worry... I see the myriad of problems involved in doing this. Lots of government rules and regs will have to change. So will attitudes. But I think that's exactly what needs to happen.

I think I'm about to run out of room, so I think I'll wrap it up here. But I think I've explained enough that you can tell where my thoughts are. I'm not stuck on any/all of it. I am stuck on putting health before profits, and empowering folks to do whatever they can for themselves, but there's probably plenty of ways to accomplish it.

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts now!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't think we'd be any better off with a government run healthcare system than a corporate run healthcare system. ... So in terms of funding, I think we could actually do more with less with a basic universal health plan.

Agreed, at least in concept.

Look at Charlie Gard, who has my heart twisted in knots right now!!! ...

So I think we need to start with a Patients' Bill of Rights, that will put health first, and allow patients to make their own decisions both with and without their doctors. Then we go from there.

I agree with the horrendous actions by the government concerning that case--it's terrible, and it's what you get when there is only (or even just mostly) single-payer healthcare administered by the government. I don't feel that all of the "free" visits to get a broken bone set and cast are worth instances like this, no matter how rare. I am fully and absolutely uncomfortable with handing control of my or my family's healthcare to government administration.

I think a public/private option could be combined as well, much like school vouchers that allow kids to attend private schools and charter schools, with the parents covering the difference out of pocket. Doctors could be reimbursed a flat fee for patient visits, and doctors could charge a little more to the patients willing to pay it.

In theory, that's a decent idea, but I have watched (mostly) the left-leaning people of this country scream and complain about a school voucher program, calling it racist and unfair (which it appears that both you and I know that it absolutely is not...in fact, it's the opposite). I could get behind something like this (again, in concept), but the reality is that there are so many people who control legislation who would be against it solely on the principle that it might sound right-wing in nature or even because it might be political suicide to vote for something like that because of the fervor of their base voters.

I also think we could greatly expand the points of delivery, from school nurses offices to drug store clinics, etc. We could use our current technology for doctor "appointments" along the lines of phone/email consultations and even Skype or Facetime appointments. We could allow Nurse Practitioners and Physicians assistants to handle more of the basic healthcare needs, reserving doctors for more serious cases. I think the free market and lots of innovative people could come up with even more and probably better.

And again, in theory, I agree with this, but this is where the beast that is government regulation comes in--there are soooo many regulations concerning when and where and by whom and what type of anything can be done concerning healthcare that it almost feels like I could get sued if I give a neighborhood kid a Band-Aid in my driveway. Until we abolish most (I would say all and then start from scratch) of these types of regulations, all of what you've noted above is just a fingers-crossed hopefest.

We could also convert more prescription drugs to OTC drugs. So the mom who knows her kid has an ear infection doesn't have to take time off from work to take her kid to the doctor and pay for a visit just to be told what she already knows in order to get the medicine he needs. Amoxicillin and Bactrim are fairly safe (barring any allergies!).

I would argue against this one, at least concerning your example of antibiotics, as it's been cited time and time again in medical papers that over-prescribing antibiotics is a bad thing, and doctors already tend to do that (in general). So, giving Jane Doe (or John) unfettered access to these types of drugs is not a good thing, IMO. Maybe treat it like suphedrine, where pharmacists can track the frequency that it's purchased, but even then, we get into more regulations to govern that as well as starting up new ways to track people. It could open a large can of prescription worms.

We also need to break the stranglehold of Big Pharma, and research and promote cheap, often readily available natural remedies. Cannabis products, of course. But also things like colloidal silver and other natural antibiotics like olive leaf extract or oregano oil. Aloe Vera is amazing for lots of things from burns and other skin conditions, to upset tummies and constipation, even irritable bowel syndrome. And good old-fashioned vitamins like C and D and niacinamide. We spend an awful lot of hard-earned tax dollars on research that benefits the deep pockets far more than us. Sure, that $1000 bottle of pills might do the trick... but so might that $20 bottle of colloidal silver. But neither Big Pharma nor the FDA has any interest in studying silver and its efficacy -- or any medicine that cannot be patented and monopolized. That needs to change.

Again, I agree to a point. I won't get into a deep discussion on this, other to say that I think it's more of a marketing problem by those pushing natural remedies than it is anything else. My wife is really big on natural stuff (vast collection of essential oils specifically for that), even using Naturethroid instead of Synthroid for her lack of a thyroid (and Naturethroid isn't very easy to find, sometimes). But I will rarely harp on the cost of R&D concerning healthcare and medicine, because I believe that every drug has its use. I would focus my energy more on the abuse of the drugs more than anything, because I believe that it's the amount that Big Pharma pushes doctors to prescribe that is the real problem, coupled with kickbacks per prescription (which should be illegal).

And, of course, we also need to educate the people, ... Basically teach people when and how to take care of their own bodies whenever possible, and when we need to turn to professionals.

See my marketing comment above, and also add in that the problem is that we live in an immediate-results society. Too many people don't want to put for the effort of self education and regulation. But I agree, it starts with winning over the mentality of the individual.

One thing that you didn't mention that I always harp on when it comes to discussing cost is this--if we can get it to the point where the poor family doesn't have to use the ER in order to see a doctor about a fever because they can't afford an urgent-care clinic or regular doctor visit (which is then unpaid and gets passed on to other consumers who do pay, making costs increase to the point of near unaffordability), then I think that we would see a decrease in costs naturally.

If we could somehow stop other countries from limiting amounts that they pay for drugs for their socialized healthcare systems (the costs then getting pushed back on the American public), then that would also help lower our costs in that department as well.

The problem is, there are myriad external or international variable that add to our healthcare costs as individuals that would also need addressed. Good discussion, though--we seem to be on similar sheets of music, but probably would differ in opinion if we had to form healthcare legislation together...probably.

Trump idea of replacing Obamacare with something else, has good chances of being approved by next week.