Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, RomaVicta said:

Can you substantiate the middle part of your post which I've separated above?

What are you asking me to substantiate exactly?  That people with expensive to treat chronic medical conditions will be drawn to a place where free comprehensive treatment is provided for those conditions with out regard to one's immigration status?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What are you asking me to substantiate exactly?  That people with expensive to treat chronic medical conditions will be drawn to a place where free comprehensive treatment is provided for those conditions with out regard to one's immigration status?

So you deduced this was happening rather than actually seeing any actual evidence?

Posted
12 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

So you deduced this was happening rather than actually seeing any actual evidence?

What in the hell are you talking about RV?

"If we are going to promote a healthcare system that flaunts adverse selection, that system is going to grind to a halt. One of the major drivers of immigration will become health care. Diagnosed with cancer?  Go North.  Need a transplant? Go North. Uncontrolled diabetes or COPD? Go North. Abuelita getting a little more forgetful and needs to be in a long-term care facility? Go North."

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn94 said:

do you think they were agreeing to provide wellness checks for illegal immigrants?

I think they were agreeing to provide free "healthcare coverage" to undocumented immigrants. Leading up to that exchange they were talking about healthcare coverage including "medicare for all" and whether the public should be allowed to buy alternatives in the marketplace.

The question itself asked if their government plan would provide coverage for illegal immigrants.

 

Based on how they described this plan, I am pretty sure this would include preventative care, vaccines and plenty of other stuff.  Where is the cutoff?  Was there something I missed?

 

 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What in the hell are you talking about RV?

"If we are going to promote a healthcare system that flaunts adverse selection, that system is going to grind to a halt. One of the major drivers of immigration will become health care. Diagnosed with cancer?  Go North.  Need a transplant? Go North. Uncontrolled diabetes or COPD? Go North. Abuelita getting a little more forgetful and needs to be in a long-term care facility? Go North."

 

So people with heart conditions, cancer, and transplant needs will flood north, show up at a hospital, and receive free care? That is your prediction?

Posted
1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not even a matter of dying in the street.  People who have communicable diseases that go untreated run around and infect other people.  It's not an immigration issue; it's a public-health issue.  We need to treat people who suffer from illnesses, irrespective of their immigration status, in order to protect the public at large.

Look--last year there was a resurgence in whooping cough.  Right wingers tried to claim that it was brought by illegal immigrants.  It wasn't.  That was just another racist lie. 

But whatever--let's imagine that it was brought by immigrants.  What sense would it make to refuse to provide those immigrants medical treatment and instead leave them untreated to infect others?  That's not just vile; it's intensely stupid.

Which is to say that it's completely within the GOP's wheelhouse.  "Vile and intensely stupid." might as well be the Republican Party's motto.

 

Posted
14 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

So people with heart conditions, cancer, and transplant needs will flood north, show up at a hospital, and receive free care? That is your prediction?

They don't have to flood to destabilize the system, and their site of care will not be limited to the hospital or emergent care.  Healthcare expenditures are driven by a small number of high utilizing, high cost, complex cases. The top 1% account for roughly 25% of all expenditures, top 5% 50%, top 10% 2/3rds. And those cases will absolutely disproportionately gravitate to the United States if we are going to publicize free, high quality healthcare for all without regard to legal status. That dynamic is not complex.  Nor are the resulting impacts on quality of care and access to care for citizens.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

They don't have to flood to destabilize the system, and their site of care will not be limited to the hospital or emergent care.  Healthcare expenditures are driven by a small number of high utilizing, high cost, complex cases. The top 1% account for roughly 25% of all expenditures, top 5% 50%, top 10% 2/3rds. And those cases will absolutely disproportionately gravitate to the United States if we are going to publicize free, high quality healthcare for all without regard to legal status. That dynamic is not complex.  Nor are the resulting impacts on quality of care and access to care for citizens.

So bigot, be woke.

Posted
4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

So people with heart conditions, cancer, and transplant needs will flood north, show up at a hospital, and receive free care? That is your prediction?

We have people flying in pretty regularly to John Hopkins, MD Anderson and St. Jude's.  I think it you offered those services for free, you would definitely give people a major reason to illegally enter the country.

I think these candidates need to clarify what all is going to be covered under these proposed plans.  From what I've read, most of the candidates have a very wide definition on what they would define as healthcare so it's a pretty safe assumption at this point we'd be fitting the bill for actual health problems like diabetes, cancer and heath disease. Not just colds and bruised knees.

 

Posted
20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

They don't have to flood to destabilize the system, and their site of care will not be limited to the hospital or emergent care.  Healthcare expenditures are driven by a small number of high utilizing, high cost, complex cases. The top 1% account for roughly 25% of all expenditures, top 5% 50%, top 10% 2/3rds. And those cases will absolutely disproportionately gravitate to the United States if we are going to publicize free, high quality healthcare for all without regard to legal status. That dynamic is not complex.  Nor are the resulting impacts on quality of care and access to care for citizens.

Bro, there will always be people trying to enter the US illegally. HC isn't going to drive some inflection. 

Posted (edited)

i was discussing the debate with our office manager and was saying, "the nutty lady up there last night, marianne williamson, bellaire's finest ...," when my boss walked by and said he'd give marianne my best.  she and his wife grew up together. 

Edited by elfenix
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i was discussing the debate with our office manager and was saying, "the nutty lady up there last night, marianne williamson, bellaire's finest ...," when my boss walked by and said he'd give marianne my best.  she and his wife grew up together. 

 

 

Posted
16 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i was discussing the debate with our office manager and was saying, "the nutty lady up there last night, marianne williamson, bellaire's finest ...," when my boss walked by and said he'd give marianne my best.  she and his wife grew up together. 

You disrespected Gaia and the fuckin' vibes are coming for you.

Go outside and apologize to the sun and say "Namaste" to four different tree spirits.

Or else you're fired

Posted
21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The inside of Anastasis's mind is just a Camp of the Saints anime.

Yes.  This is alt right nationalist thinking. That's why Sweden and UK and Canada place restrictions on illegal immigrants access to their healthcare systems. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yes.  This is alt right nationalist thinking. That's why Sweden and UK and Canada place restrictions on illegal immigrants access to their healthcare systems. 

I'm fucking with you; you obviously aren't a far-right racist piece of shit and that's why it works as a joke.

Posted
Just now, bad_teammate said:

I'm fucking with you; you obviously aren't a far-right racist piece of shit and that's why it works as a joke.

What do you have against Sweden though?

Posted (edited)
Quote

What do you have against Sweden though?

the fact that everything is assembled using the same tiny allen key. 

Edited by elfenix
  • Like 2
Posted

Or three million people wanted to see if Biden would touch Kamala’s hair. 

Garnier Fructis.  That’s a real weak spot for him.  

Posted

Politico says Wednesday/Thursday fundraising on ActBlue shows:

-Harris: Most money since her first week campaign rally

-Booker: Most money since his first day launch and last day of Q1

-Castro: 3x more than his previous record day

Posted

Tim Pool might not be a Democrat!?!?!?
 

oh my god!

 

This is so crazy what a wild turn of events I NEVER would hae expected the guy who hangs out with Nazis to not like Democrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOW

Posted

Ha, ha I guarantee you Tim Pool has never voted for a Republican in his life.  I will also guarantee you that will change in 2020.  The Democrat Party has the same problem this thread has.  It is chalk full of complete fools who believe they have been the smartest person in every room they have ever been in in their life.

Posted
2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Ha, ha I guarantee you Tim Pool has never voted for a Republican in his life.  I will also guarantee you that will change in 2020.  The Democrat Party has the same problem this thread has.  It is chalk full of complete fools who believe they have been the smartest person in every room they have ever been in in their life.

yes, 2020 will definitely be the year where a bunch of people who didn't vote for trump in '16 will vote for him now because he's been number 1 super awesome most best tremendous mr president since george fucking washington.

this thread is capturing the theater of who gets to beat trump next year.  please don't rob us of that.

Posted
 
 
Who won the second Democratic Debate?
Andrew Yang 30.57%  
 
 
Kamala Harris 24.53%  
 
 
Bernie Sanders 20.83%  
 
 
Pete Buttigieg 12.02%  
 
 
Joe Biden 6.15%  
 
 
Marianne Williamson 2.77%  
 
 
John Hickenlooper 1.2%  
 
 
Kirsten Gillibrand 0.87%  
 
 
Michael Bennet 0.58%  
 
 
Eric Swalwell 0.47%  
 
Posted
8 hours ago, 6th Street said:

Last night's far left leanings such as Medicare for all, eliminating private HC, free healthcare for illegals, etc were clearly pandering to the base. The key is how effectively these candidates can pivot back to the center in the general election to win over moderates. Pete and Biden are capable of this. Not sure about the others - Warren and Bernie's platform seem set in stone. Harris is the wild card. The rest are insignificant 

God, you fucking suck



×
×
  • Create New...