humm - malingerers or crooked doctors, greedy Pharma, windbag politico, price fixing insurers - my pocket is always being picked. My pocket is not the point. No one should be denied health care.
3 Likes
No one knows. Hopefully it wonât come to that. If so maybe you can get assistance of some sort. We will be going back to Canada if they dismantle Medicare. I will have to pay for dexcom and who knows if the pump I use is covered but not paying for the insurance I have here would hopefully cover a lot of what I need. I really donât want to live here forever now that a fascist has taken power. This is not a democracy any more- or not a democratic republic. I hope that the law that has been passed in some states to dismantle the electoral college as it is will pass in more and stop this destruction. Hopefully the whole country as we know it will not be dismantled by that point.
1 Like
Well the electoral college is clearly defined in both article II section 1 of the constitution as well as the 12th amendment⌠so states canât really just do away with it if they feel like it. Like the result or not, its actual design intent was to effect elections in such a way as we just saw happen. People love it when it leads to the result they want but not when it doesnât. Its purpose was to ensure that the entire geographic country had some say-- not just select pockets like the (east and west coast in this case) So it actually just served its design purpose whether we like it or not.
2 Likes
Im not interested in discussing this or anything else with you. Please donât reply to any of my posts or responses
1 Like
Well thatâs certainly an uncivil thing to say.
Though they canât just do away with the electoral college, initiatives like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could effectively circumvent the electoral college if enough states sign on.
2 Likes
There is a process to modify the constitution if enough states vote to ratify an amendment . Initiatives to otherwise circumvent it are right up there with the worst ideas ever. What happens if itâs something else, something you think is a good thing (say, the right to not be cruelly and unusually punished, or the right of all Americans to vote, the right to assemble, or the freedom of speech) that is being attempted to be circumvented?
Oh, and what happens when the popular vote doesnât favor the democratic candidate? Do we just hurriedly undo such initiatives?
Can we not start up this conversation again, please?
Thanks!
1 Like
Not trying to start the conversation, just trying to keep it grounded in reality.
Lots of âRepublicansâ are complaining right now about the Electoral College too. 
1 Like
Itâs clear from this discussion that the ACA is producing friction between people who fall into different groups under the law. If you get free insurance those that have to pay resent that. If you receive a subsidy those that donât resent that.
These feelings, whether justified or not, are entirely predictable. It would have been nice if the drafters of the bill would have anticipated this instead of falling over backwards to protect existing stakeholders.
There is a kid at work who has T1. He lost his previous job and with it his health insurance. He tried to use NPH and R but between the unpredictability of these insulinâs and having been given only the barest instructions from a pharmacist, he was always running dangerously high. Heâs not even 20 and he already has neuropathy in his hands.
Now working with us he has insurance and has been able to see a doctor and get a prescription. If for no other reason it is in all of our best interest to not be wasting and discarding so much human potential.
We have heard similar stories on this forum many times. The healthcare system and society in general is letting down millions of our citizens. Things like this should not be happening in the richest country in the history of mankind.
4 Likes
Not a single person should be âpriced outâ of life. Agree with this post fully.
2 Likes
I agree entirely with both of you I just think the solution has to be bringing costs down for all people-- not escalating costs across the board and depending on there being enough wealth at only one end of the spectrum to cover the entirety. I think the long term solution is to ensure healthcare is priced at a level where everyone can afford their basic needs and insurance exists to cover unforseeable crisis. Thatâs not a partisan or political issue-- itâs an economic one.
1 Like
I agree. The 300%, and 800% and some even higher âincreasesâ in drug costs over the past 50 years has nothing to do with the cost of making the drugs and everything to do with corporate greed. Until this is dealt with (laws restricting how much a company can increase drug costs by, or being required to receive approval from Congress before going above X amount increase in a given year), costs will continue to rise and people will continue to struggle.
IMHO, it all boils down to CORPORATE GREED. Epi-Pens, Insulin and every other drug are victims of this.
1 Like
Corporate greed is certainly a large part of it. Dysfunctional and costly regulatory burdens and the economics of the insurance market itself also also play a role in price escalation IMO.
1 Like
The problem is that the usual forces of the free market do not seem to apply to health care. Corporate geed is not a factor in a free market.
2 Likes
Exactly. Because itâs not a free market when a third party dictates the rules and foots the bills.
Also, though, electors were supposed to make up their own minds about who to send their votes toâŚitâs only with the advent of Jefferson that we get the notion that there should be a direct correspondence between the popular vote and the number of electors going to a particular candidate. Our founding fathers liked their democracy a lot more diluted than we do today.
When our national leaders are only interested in doing their job when they get their way, please donât talk to me about how our system shouldnât be tinkered with. The Republicans in the Senate did not do their job and advise and consent. The consequence of that circumvention is that the balance of our Supreme Court has been altered inappropriately.
1 Like
Except theyâre pledged to vote for their partyâs nominee. The notion that theyâd cross over and vote for the opposing parties nominee in significant numbers, against the will of the party theyâre representing is just silly. And if it works one way it works both ways⌠and if it works both ways weâd actually likely see even more electoral votes going to trump rather than Clinton. I wasnât expecting it to happen either, but Trump won by a landslide when it comes to pledged electoral votes-- and they havenât even announced that he won Michigan yet, though quite clearly he did⌠it may prove to be an epic blunder of history, but right now itâs reality. If it doesnât work out well we get a do-over in 4 years. Iâd like to see the election process still have some credibility by then-- but if either side continues to challenge the results of fair elections like this (something the losing side expressed absolute dismay that the winning side had hinted they might do if the results had been different) then it is very problematic for our country⌠and it wouldnât be the fault of the fairly elected, itâd be the fault of the oppositions refusal to accept a fair election result they donât like.
Those protesting and throwing fits and trying to repurpose the electoral college today are setting a bad precedent for what might happen 4 or 8 years from now.