Because better Medicare and expanded Medicaid make me a fascist. And McCarthy was on to something. And I’m the one with no self awareness?
The Federalist had the hoax sussed out from the start. Molly and Sean do a great job over there. Will be interesting to see how many scalps Durham cuts off. Has one former FBI agent on convicted felon status, and a Democrat lawyer and the Russian up on charges. Lots more indictments possible from the Perkins Coie law firm that’s been the Democrat firm of choice for years. But the true accountability needs to be with the FBI who used the pile of crap in the dossier to spy on Americans and interfere with an election.
Can you please write a brief description of how wanting improved healthcare access for seniors and the uninsured makes me a fascist. I must just be stupid cause I don’t see it. (Please note I’m not a universal health care guy before you drill that hole)
Wanting to improve healthcare for seniors and uninsured doesn't make you a fascist. Supporting the government to manage, regulate, and control private business to "improve healthcare" does. That is what fascism is by definition. Also called Corporatism in Italian Corporazione. Mussolini set up a system where the government enacted its plans by instructing and controlling the actions of large corporations and academia. It's what we have in the US more and more as the US Fed Gov gobbles up more and more of the decision making for individual and property owners.
I could be wrong, but didn't you make a case for not providing healthcare to the unvaccinated? If so you are now picking and choosing who get's healthcare. Seniors deserve better healthcare unless they are unvaccinated. Once you start dictating these things you become a fascist.
So by expanding the services covered by Medicare (dentures, hearing aids, etc.) and expanding some eligibility for access to Medicaid I'm "Supporting the government to manage, regulate, and control private business"? That's quite the ************* leap, no? It seems to me that you're as overzealous as ole' Joe McCarthy in your definitions.
No. I think I agreed that, in a world where care is rationed due to overwhelming demand, vaccinated should get care over unvaccinated, with all things being equal. That's simply triage. I have never said that the unvaccinated shouldn't be treated. I did say that insurance companies would be smart to encourage/incentivize vaccinations, I think. And, I still believe that. BC/BS offers no copay/deductible in my plan for vaccinations. That's an incentive via removing barriers to preventative medicine.
Yes, let the insurance companies incentivize vaccines like non-smoking. If you are unvaccinated then you have a greater risk of hospitalization meaning your insurance should be more expensive. If not, your choice and risk is being subsidized by the vaccinated.
Seems all very logical to me. Medicare and Medicaid are implements the government uses to manage, regulate, and control private health care businesses. No leap. Maybe a step. I get it that you are negatively sensitive to those trying to increase freedom.
Hey, hey, hey. Yet another fascist idea if the government is involved in those decisions. And of course they are because the health industry isn't a free market. It is regulated, controlled, and managed by government agencies.
Insurance companies have never tied cost to vaccination for any disease, even those more dangerous (based on IFR) than COVID-19. Completely arbitrary to start that now. At the same time, insurance companies do economic/financial projections all the time. If their actuaries discover an actual increased cost due to non-vaccinated believe me they will charge for it. Their profitability depends on it.
We've never before treated vaccines like some have done with the Covid vaccine either. It was rather arbitrary to decide that this vaccine was suddenly the hill to die on to. With an ongoing critical mass of unvaccinated, it moves the needle on insurance costs. Agreed which is why I've suggested they are allowed to account for it.
I would argue that those smart people have already chimed in on vaccines. Insurance companies wanting to incentivize preventative medicine do things like remove copays and deductibles for things like annual check ups, screening colonoscopies, and (to steal from mb) checks notes, vaccinations.
That’s like saying the real estate market is fascist because government backed loans are utilized often.
You talking about Progressives? Sounds like you are talking about those obsessed with forcing children to take a vaccine for a disease that doesn't pose them a credible threat Oh yeah? Prove it. Fair enough as long as you are not also suggesting that government health agencies incentivize it.
That isn't what happened here though. What happened here is that the government bought and distributes these jabs. This isn't insurance companies, pharmacies, or doctors taking entrepreneurial action.
Ding ding ding ding! You win another prize. See how freeing it is to having your eyes opened to truth? I would say the real estate market is fascist to the degree the government backs and subsidizes the loans of private companies, and regulates the market. The degree is significant currently.
Vaccines were never only about protecting just the individual but rather limiting community spread. Yes, individuals are important but you're moving the goalposts if you advocate that vaccine promotion is only about individuals. There is a reason public health authorities and schools had advocated vaccine programs (and mandates) for decades. It's about protecting the society so I'd kindly ask you to return the goalposts to their original location. Seriously? You need to me to put up stats that show the volume of unvaccinated in our hospitals vs. vaccinated? Logic would portend that insurance payouts for unvaccinated are higher than vaccinated since the vaccine has been widely available based on hospital utilization rates.
I'm going to chime in on the issue of insurance costing more for the unvaccinated. I don't per se have a problem with this, but I'd like to define the principle that's guiding the decision. Should we charge them more because they're making a bad decision that puts them at higher risk for incurring high healthcare costs?
