Tennessee considers withholding monoclonal antibody treatment from vaccinated citizens

#303
#303
AM64 said:
OmammyCare - bring everybody down to the same level of misery, but not everybody has to pay.
Click to expand...
Hey, I got a $334 refund on my $9000 premium I paid last year. Thankfully, I'm going on medicare next year and my drug costs will cost me more than Obamacare does this year. Yeah!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#305
#305
AM64 said:
OmammyCare - bring everybody down to the same level of misery, but not everybody has to pay.
Click to expand...

Wrong. With a single payer system, all taxable income pays into the system. It is the same principle as insurance, increasing the pool of people paying into the pool decreases the risks of all of the individuals in it.
 
#306
#306
AM64 said:
OmammyCare - bring everybody down to the same level of misery, but not everybody has to pay.
Click to expand...

Wrong. With a single payer system, all taxable income pays into the system. It is the same principle as insurance, increasing the pool of people paying into the pool decreases the risks of all of the individuals in it. The numbers clearly show that people would pay less to receive more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#308
#308
SuzyVol said:
So about 50% of the population would be free riders?
Click to expand...

I did not say that. If you want to say it, then I'd like to see your real(not unreal) reasons. I also want to see why you would object to paying less to receive more. Is that it?
 
#309
#309
Vol Main said:
Wrong. With a single payer system, all taxable income pays into the system. It is the same principle as insurance, increasing the pool of people paying into the pool decreases the risks of all of the individuals in it. The numbers clearly show that people would pay less to receive more.
Click to expand...
Until it starts a feedback loop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and StarRaider
#310
#310
Vol Main said:
I did not say that. If you want to say it, then I'd like to see your real(not unreal) reasons. I also want to see why you would object to paying less to receive more. Is that it?
Click to expand...
Vol Main said:
I did not say that. If you want to say it, then I'd like to see your real(not unreal) reasons. I also want to see why you would object to paying less to receive more. Is that it?
Click to expand...
Don't approximately 50%, maybe even 61% recently, of households pay no federal income tax? So they would swim in the single payer pool without financing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#311
#311
The article by Himmelstein et al
1
in this issue of the The American Journal of Medicine documents that health care expenses were the most common cause of bankruptcy in the United States in 2007, accounting for 62% of US bankruptcies compared with 8% in 1981.
2
Most bankruptcies occurred in middle-class citizens with health insurance, further evidence that our current health care system, based on for-profit, employment-based health insurance, is not working.

DEFINE_ME
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#312
#312
SuzyVol said:
Don't approximately 50%, maybe even 61% recently, of households pay no federal income tax? So they would swim in the single payer pool without financing it.
Click to expand...

Assuming those numbers are accurate for the sake of argument, are you in favor of paying more to receive less if it means that those unable to pay would not receive health care? WTF kind of person thinks like that? Allow me to answer my own question. That thinking exemplifies the ideology of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party. Are you a Nazi?
 
Last edited:
#313
#313
volinbham said:
you included my link in your quote of me - if you had read the article you would see the point.

Do you think Reason invented the headlines it linked?
Click to expand...
Why
volinbham said:
you included my link in your quote of me - if you had read the article you would see the point.

Do you think Reason invented the headlines it linked?
Click to expand...

Why not? It happens all the time. And if it is true that doesn't mean what was claimed prior didn't happen.

Since you are such an anal hair splitter I'll try to straighten you out. I replied to your post. You did the quoting. It's like a conversation, you make a statement I reply. Besides if I never read it as you surmise how could I quote it.
 
#314
#314
luthervol said:
That's taking it to far. Vax or no-vax is the line.
Click to expand...
BS. Either you’re charged for following recommendations or not. You don’t get to decide where the line is on that. No one should because there shouldn’t be a line. But you only bring this up because you want to punish the unvaccinated, as another poster said. I’m not vaccinated but I had the virus. So what about me? Should I be punished in your idiotic scenario?
 
#315
#315
hUTch2002 said:
BS. Either you’re charged for following recommendations or not. You don’t get to decide where the line is on that. No one should because there shouldn’t be a line. But you only bring this up because you want to punish the unvaccinated, as another poster said. I’m not vaccinated but I had the virus. So what about me? Should I be punished in your idiotic scenario?
Click to expand...
Why can't they draw a line? Health insurance companies certainly drew an arbitrary line with tobacco use.
I would imagine they would give people who are proven to have had the vaccine a pass.
 
#316
#316
Hunerwadel said:
Why


Why not? It happens all the time. And if it is true that doesn't mean what was claimed prior didn't happen.

Since you are such an anal hair splitter I'll try to straighten you out. I replied to your post. You did the quoting. It's like a conversation, you make a statement I reply. Besides if I never read it as you surmise how could I quote it.
Click to expand...

you asked me why I said some articles about the situation were misinformation - the article I linked explained why.

you attack the source without any evidence as to why it is wrong.

The Reason article has actual links to articles with headlines that make claims that are not true. They are live links.

a couple clicks and you could have answered your own question but instead we get this silly game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#318
#318
Vol Main said:
Assuming those numbers are accurate for the sake of argument, are you in favor of paying more to receive less if it means that those unable to pay would not receive health care? WTF kind of person thinks like that? Allow me to answer my own question. That thinking exemplifies the ideology of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party. Are you a Nazi?
Click to expand...
Name calling wins few arguments. But to address your almost incoherent question, why would anyone, you included, want to pay more (than one previously paid for medical insurance, I assume) to receive less (than one previously received in medical benefits, I assume) if "those unable to pay would not receive health care?" Do not expect any further replies from me, name caller.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, AM64 and StarRaider
#319
#319
Vol Main said:
The article by Himmelstein et al
1
in this issue of the The American Journal of Medicine documents that health care expenses were the most common cause of bankruptcy in the United States in 2007, accounting for 62% of US bankruptcies compared with 8% in 1981.
2
Most bankruptcies occurred in middle-class citizens with health insurance, further evidence that our current health care system, based on for-profit, employment-based health insurance, is not working.

DEFINE_ME
Click to expand...

So I'm not sure you read the Himmelstein study.

Here's the definition of "medical bankruptcy": For this analysis, we replicated the most conservative definition employed in the 2001 study, which designated as “medically bankrupt” debtors citing illness or medical bills as a specific reason for bankruptcy; OR reporting uncovered medical bills >$1000 in the past 2 years; OR who lost at least 2 weeks of work-related income due to illness/injury; OR who mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Debtors who gave no answers regarding reasons for their bankruptcy were excluded from analyses.

For the 2007 # you cite here is the definition: We altered the 2001 criteria to include debtors who had been forced to quit work due to illness or injury. We also reconsidered the question of how large out-of-pocket medical expenses should be before those debts should be considered contributors to the family's bankruptcy. Although we needed to use the threshold of $1000 in out-of-pocket medical bills for consistency in the time trend analyses, we adopted a more conservative threshold—$5000 or 10% of household income—for all other analyses. Adopting these more conservative criteria reduced the estimate of the proportion of bankruptcies due to illness or medical bills by 7 percentage

Items that single payer doesn't solve but included in the definition or that call into question the reason for bankruptcy:

1. being forced to quit due to illness or injury - this is an issue of replacement income; not inability to pay medical bills - single payer does nothing to help these people.
2. simply having uncovered bills of $1000 or even $5000 doesn't mean they are the "cause" of bankruptcy - could be other debt they had such as credit card, auto, etc. This is the same flaw that was shown in Elizabeth Warren's work.
3. losing work-related income to illness/injury - a variation on #1 but still not an issue of health insurance.
4. mortgaging a home to pay medical bills - again we know nothing of their other debt.


Further - if you read the article only 29% of respondents attributed the bankruptcy to medical bills.

There was no difference in those the study determined to be "medical bankruptcy" and those that were not in insurance status at time of bankruptcy.

About 26% of those who had medical bankruptcy due to illness were on either Medicare or Medicaid. Both are single payers and they did not prevent this situation which the authors label "medical bankruptcy"

Finally, your source 1 changes the definition of that which Himmelstein used: Source 1 definition: "that health care expenses were the most common cause of bankruptcy in the United States in 2007". Himmelstein's definition of medical bankruptcy that specifically includes loss of income as fitting the term "medical bankruptcy" and accounts for roughly half of the cases. Again, single payer doesn't replace income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, AM64 and StarRaider
#320
#320
SuzyVol said:
Name calling wins few arguments. But to address your almost incoherent question, why would anyone, you included, want to pay more (than one previously paid for medical insurance, I assume) to receive less (than one previously received in medical benefits, I assume) if "those unable to pay would not receive health care?" Do not expect any further replies from me, name caller.
Click to expand...

Oh my. First, I did not call you any names, but I'll call you Suzy. I am trying to look at your position as it is. We know that single payer insurance will cost every person less money than private insurance. We also know that single payer insurance provides more coverage than most private insurance. Are we straight on that? With single payer system, you pay less and get more. Now, that means a person who favors the current(employer/employee) private system wants to pay more to receive less. I'll repeat that. Current system means paying more for less coverage. That seems to be your position, the current system. So what is your position? Current system equals pay more and get less. This is not my opinion. As for my being a name caller, I'll call you Suzy. I have not called you any other names. I asked you if you opposed a single payer system in which you would pay less and receive more, because other people who could not afford to pay would also be covered. We know that a lot of those people are going to die for lack of health care. So opposing single payer means that you want to pay more to get less, for the purpose of denying health care to people who cannot pay. You might not feel responsible for those other people, but you are making a choice for private insurance to pay more and get less because you want people who cannot pay to suffer and die because they cannot pay. Right? Correct me if I'm wrong. In case you do not know it, that was the ideology of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party. Of course, they ended up accelerating the process with lethal injections. And here's another thing. Insurance costs of our current system are a heavy burden for companies to pay. The economy would work more efficiently with a single payer system. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
Last edited:
#321
#321
Vol Main said:
First, I did not call you any names, but I'll call you Suzy. I am trying to look at your position as it is. We know that single payer insurance will cost every person less money than private insurance. We also know that single payer insurance provides more coverage than most private insurance. Are we straight on that? With single payer system, you pay less and get more. Now, that means a person who favors the current system wants to pay more to receive less. I'll repeat that. Current system means paying more for less coverage. That seems to be your position, the current system. So what is your position? Current system equals pay more and get less. This is not my opinion. As for my being a name caller, I'll call you Suzy. I have not called you any other names. I asked you if you opposed a single payer system in which you would pay less and receive more, because other people who could not afford to pay would also be covered. We know that a lot of those people are going to die for lack of health care. So opposing single payer means that you want to pay more to get less, while denying health care to people who cannot pay. You might not feel responsible for those other people, but you are making a choice for private insurance to pay more and get less because you want people who cannot pay to suffer and die because they cannot pay. Right? Correct me if I'm wrong. In case you do not know it, that was the ideology of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party. Of course, they accelerated the process with lethal injections.
Click to expand...

supporting private insurance over single payer means you share the ideology of the Nazi party

solid argument.

guess most of the countries in the world share that ideology...

"There are currently 17 countries that offer single-payer healthcare:"

Countries With Single Payer 2021
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#322
#322
Orangeslice13 said:
Let’s use ivermectin for the unvaccinated and monoclonal antibody treatments for the vaccinated. Problem solved
Click to expand...
Wouldnt your tongue I cheek be more accurate to say the vaxxed get nothing, since they trust the vax. And the unvaxxed get everything else because they dont trust the vax?

The argument is that the vax works right? And people are dumb not to get it? Unless the rhetoric has yet again changed, now not only do the vaxxed still need to wear masks, some need boosters, but now they also need this other treatment? Starting to sound like the vax doesnt work at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#323
#323
LouderVol said:
Wouldnt your tongue I cheek be more accurate to say the vaxxed get nothing, since they trust the vax. And the unvaxxed get everything else because they dont trust the vax?

The argument is that the vax works right? And people are dumb not to get it? Unless the rhetoric has yet again changed, now not only do the vaxxed still need to wear masks, some need boosters, but now they also need this other treatment? Starting to sound like the vax doesnt work at all.
Click to expand...
Actually no.

The vaccinated should receive continued treatment first as they are continuing to follow medical advice.
The unvaccinated should be considered against medical advice and receive treatment accordingly.
Unless they have a dr that told them not to receive the vaccine.

If you’re in the “vaccine doesn’t work camp” then you’re literally too stupid to talk too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#324
#324
Orangeslice13 said:
Actually no.

The vaccinated should receive continued treatment first as they are continuing to follow medical advice.
The unvaccinated should be considered against medical advice and receive treatment accordingly.
Unless they have a dr that told them not to receive the vaccine.

If you’re in the “vaccine doesn’t work camp” then you’re literally too stupid to talk too.
Click to expand...
My doctor said there was no medical reason for me to get it. Not that I shouldnt get it, just there is no reason for me to get it. Am I following medical advice?

How many of the vaxxed are losing weight, eating right, exercising, getting their supplements or any number of other common medical advice? It's weird that the only medical advice that matters is the vax. It's almost like the system only cares about vax compliance, and not actual safety.

Didnt wash your hands, no treatment. Dont floss after every meal, no treatment. Didnt get eight hours of sleep every night, no treatment. Didnt drink enough water, no treatment.

Come on slice, be consistent, plenty of people not following medical advice, daily. But for some reason it's only the vax that matters.....you really think it's about safety?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#325
#325
It's got to be so easy to be a doctor these days.

So are you vaxxed? Yes? Great, let me fill out this paper work and get your insurance card and I will get you out of here in a jiffy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top