TrumPutinGate

#22,778
#22,778
McDad said:
Darn right
Click to expand...

But real nurses, the RN's - not the window trolls at your GP's office or the tubby broads who take your BP in the exam room and ask what ails you so the MD can consult WEB MD before they come in. Those heffers call themselves "nurses" but they are just medical assistants that got a certificate over a long weekend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#22,779
#22,779
hog88 said:
Guess he didn't want to answer.
Click to expand...
Sorry I didn't realize there was a time limit. Peanut gallery is quick too

I don't see healthcare as a right. However if a country like ours chooses to feed, clothe, shelter and defend the world then that should only happen after those here are taken care of first. I also think that it could be handled locally if govt would get out of the way. You can't have the govt saying they won't help and then go after the ones trying to do what they think it's right. But if they get out of the way some might realize they aren't needed in the first place.

So yes, an advanced civilized society should at the very least be able to feed and house its citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423
#22,780
#22,780
Septic said:
But real nurses, the RN's - not the window trolls at your GP's office or the tubby broads who take your BP in the exam room and ask what ails you so the MD can consult WEB MD before they come in. Those heffers call themselves "nurses" but they are just medical assistants that got a certificate over a long weekend.
Click to expand...

I go to the rheumatologist way too often (at least 4x/year) and every time the "nurse" comes in, weighs me, then asks me what drugs I take and what pharmacy I use. She doesn't even take my blood pressure.

I'd like to spare us the ordeal and tell her, "If I change what drugs I'm taking or what pharmacy I use, I'll let you know." But then would she have purpose in her life?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#22,781
#22,781
Septic said:
But real nurses, the RN's - not the window trolls at your GP's office or the tubby broads who take your BP in the exam room and ask what ails you so the MD can consult WEB MD before they come in. Those heffers call themselves "nurses" but they are just medical assistants that got a certificate over a long weekend.
Click to expand...
Lol. Ladies at the sperm bank treating you harshly again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#22,782
#22,782
utvolpj said:
Sorry I didn't realize there was a time limit. Peanut gallery is quick too

I don't see healthcare as a right. However if a country like ours chooses to feed, clothe, shelter and defend the world then that should only happen after those here are taken care of first. I also think that it could be handled locally if govt would get out of the way. You can't have the govt saying they won't help and then go after the ones trying to do what they think it's right. But if they get out of the way some might realize they aren't needed in the first place.

So yes, an advanced civilized society should at the very least be able to feed and house its citizens.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
#22,784
#22,784
Septic said:
You're doing that in the pre ACA anyway... Why is this such a hard concept? Who do you think is paying for their bills when they can't afford healthcare and show up to the hospital that can't turn them away?
Click to expand...

After ACA, my insurance doubled and my taxes didn't go down. That argument doesn't seem to hold water as far as I'm concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C-south and AirVol
#22,786
#22,786
You want to lower healthcare costs? Lower the regulatory requirements on who can practice what. There's quite a supply constraint. That also requires tort reform. Finally, reform the FDA to focus at least some of their drug approval on new treatments with equal or equivalent outcomes but lower costs. The current focus is almost entirely on improved efficacy regardless of cost.

Then you can provide coverage to the poorest and by freeing the insurance market (state lines cough cough) you can get more people covered, seen and treated without breaking the bank more.

Screws with too many interests groups though so nevermind.
 
#22,787
#22,787
volinbham said:
You want to lower healthcare costs? Lower the regulatory requirements on who can practice what. There's quite a supply constraint. That also requires tort reform. Finally, reform the FDA to focus at least some of their drug approval on new treatments with equal or equivalent outcomes but lower costs. The current focus is almost entirely on improved efficacy regardless of cost.

Then you can provide coverage to the poorest and by freeing the insurance market (state lines cough cough) you can get more people covered, seen and treated without breaking the bank more.

Screws with too many interests groups though so nevermind.
Click to expand...

I used to believe the fallacy others were wanting lower costs. They don't. They dont care about costs as much as they do the taxpayers paying.
 
#22,788
#22,788
McDad said:
I used to believe the fallacy others were wanting lower costs. They don't. They dont care about costs as much as they do the taxpayers paying.
Click to expand...

Yep - it's not about costs and going back to ACA one of the architects - the ignominious Gruber of "the people are dumb enough to buy it" fame discussed on more than one occasion how ACA was not going to impact costs and wasn't designed to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#22,790
#22,790
Velo Vol said:
Available under the ACA.

Not used because it's not profitable.
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "available". Insurers had to enter compacts and the rules of the compacts were never developed under the previous administration.

This could be done much simpler.
 
#22,792
#22,792
Orange_Crush said:
Stories this week that confirmed the agencies actually did start an investigation into the US President, based literally merely on the fact that his foreign policy differed from their preferences (and known dirty intel against him), after having denied they had done so.

That's been about to hit the fan, so they leaked it for spin, spun it, and now we have these stories as distraction based on anonymous sources.
Click to expand...

Why do I doubt it was opened because the foreign policy merely differed?

Ya know they knew Flynn had been communicating with the Russians and lying about it and the White House was falling over themselves to eliminate sanctions once through the door.

This is the part that some people are missing.. The FBI and intelligence agencies knew so much more than we knew, and it's only coming out now through court filings.

Trump and his campaign swearing they have had nothing to do with Russia.. Fake News.. blah bah.. American Institutions be damned.. Clean House, lock her up!

Those in the know may have disliked Trump, but watching the man lie continuously surely made them despise him.

If the evidence is already there, what would you expect the FBI to do?
 
#22,799
#22,799
RockyTop85 said:
😂😂😂

I was about to post something sililar for laughs.

Who is the buzzfeed author? He’s going on my list of hacks with Jacob Wohl.
Click to expand...

It stunk when it came out last night. It won’t be much of a surprise when it turns out to be a dud.

The real question is who leaked it. And why was Buzzfeed the chosen outlet?

It was fun watching the frenzy, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top