RugbyRebels

Oh to add to the insurance curiosities in California... there is a policy available to Americans for care in Mexico. I could technically drive across the border to Tijuana or Rosarito for care with this particular policy.

I can buy a policy from another country but not from another state. Go figure.

Don't do that. I'm not a Rothschild. I work in a medical school and work specifically with individuals that have terminal congenital disorders. These individuals and their families are currently facing insurance companies that are primed to give a big fuck you to coverage on the basis of the new health world order that is incoming, with congenital disorder equivalent in their eyes to a pre-existing condition. A country that has the talent and the resources that the US has (I have had the privilege to work with utterly stunning physicians and advocates here) should not be looking to triage people that need it the most. I completely understand the exorbitant cost of healthcare in this country (I have worked in some seriously tragic environments in my time here) but arguing for deregulation of this for-profit thundercunt of a system is a path that ends in madness, and increased cost if that is your thing. I say this with the utmost respect Cocoid me old mate.

I am impressed Porky and thank you for giving me a peek at what you do and what you experience daily. It gives me a bit of insight as to why you think and feel what you do. I understand and respect your views and thoughts on it. I was speaking about what I see and know and experience on the daily. I wish everyone could have affordable coverage - that would be ideal. I understand that there are people that need more in depth care than I do today, however, that does not take away the fact that I also have a right to healthcare that is actually affordable... regardless of my state of health. That can change in an instant... to anyone... any time.

Coco wrote:I am impressed Porky and thank you for giving me a peek at what you do and what you experience daily. It gives me a bit of insight as to why you think and feel what you do. I understand and respect your views and thoughts on it. I was speaking about what I see and know and experience on the daily. I wish everyone could have affordable coverage - that would be ideal. I understand that there are people that need more in depth care than I do today, however, that does not take away the fact that I also have a right to healthcare that is actually affordable... regardless of my state of health. That can change in an instant... to anyone... any time.

...because of the preposterous assumption that for profit health is a net benefit. Most countries do have access to healthcare, not bound by financial metrics of performance. That being said, the medical talent, resource and innovation in the US is second to none (wait for the blowback on that). Look into, if you haven't already, the foundations of the FDA. A case study in medical advocacy for the public good. This rock star is the main reference taught to budding young scientists and physicians in this context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey

Cheers Cocoid, you are a pleasure to cross swords with (!).

Coco wrote:

J Dory wrote:

Coco wrote:
I am not alone. I know what you meant, and as I said, his orange skin and yellow hair are not who he is.
People that voted for him were able to look beyond all of the surface crap, petty distractions, rumors, and accusations. They decided his ideals for the most part could possibly steer things in another direction and felt he was worth a try. If Mickey Mouse ran under the same policy changes, Dem or Repub, I would have voted for Mickey Mouse. The person matters not, the outcome does. That is all I meant.

Ahh, well now we're really parting ways. Orange skin and yellow hair don't matter. It's all the other shit that I thought would matter. The man you see is not the same stupid, racist, narcissistic, misogynistic money grabbing, adoration craving pig of a man that I see I guess. I thought you were ok with him despite all that because you felt he was pushing the country in the right direction, but it sounds like you actually like him.

Does it? I thought I made myself clear, but it seems you can't get past the fact that his personality traits aren't the be all end all for most people living in the depths of reality. He is a tool, but that tool is moving my corner of the country in the right direction so far. How much more clear can I be?

Now let's just kiss and make up already.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your last post, rereading it I see that. I don't believe Trump will lead America anywhere good, and it saddens me to see that you do, because if you do, he might get elected again. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to share your views, I get where you're coming from to a degree, certainly more than I did before.

J Dory wrote:

Coco wrote:

J Dory wrote:
Ahh, well now we're really parting ways. Orange skin and yellow hair don't matter. It's all the other shit that I thought would matter. The man you see is not the same stupid, racist, narcissistic, misogynistic money grabbing, adoration craving pig of a man that I see I guess. I thought you were ok with him despite all that because you felt he was pushing the country in the right direction, but it sounds like you actually like him.

Does it? I thought I made myself clear, but it seems you can't get past the fact that his personality traits aren't the be all end all for most people living in the depths of reality. He is a tool, but that tool is moving my corner of the country in the right direction so far. How much more clear can I be?

Now let's just kiss and make up already.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your last post, rereading it I see that. I don't believe Trump will lead America anywhere good, and it saddens me to see that you do, because if you do, he might get elected again. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to share your views, I get where you're coming from to a degree, certainly more than I did before.

It all remains to be seen. I have hope our President does some degree of good for everyone.

Coco wrote:

J Dory wrote:

Coco wrote:

Does it? I thought I made myself clear, but it seems you can't get past the fact that his personality traits aren't the be all end all for most people living in the depths of reality. He is a tool, but that tool is moving my corner of the country in the right direction so far. How much more clear can I be?

Now let's just kiss and make up already.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your last post, rereading it I see that. I don't believe Trump will lead America anywhere good, and it saddens me to see that you do, because if you do, he might get elected again. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to share your views, I get where you're coming from to a degree, certainly more than I did before.

It all remains to be seen. I have hope our President does some degree of good for everyone.

Good fuckin luck with that. He is a feckless tool. He will shamble in the direction that Goldman Sachs tells him to.

J Dory wrote:Sorry, I misinterpreted your last post, rereading it I see that. I don't believe Trump will lead America anywhere good, and it saddens me to see that you do, because if you do, he might get elected again. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to share your views, I get where you're coming from to a degree, certainly more than I did before.

I suppose that statement needs to be taken in context.

I imagine many US voters are all for Trump's protectionism, jobs, economy and military might policies, but further down the line, questions about health, environment, trade and the ability to prosper remain.

I personally struggle to see any long term good coming from Trump and his denial of scientific knowledge when it comes to the environment and health. He may well be long gone when people are queueing up for treatment due to exposure to pollutants and PM10 and lower particulates in the breathable atmosphere. No doubt whomever is president when these issues make front page news will get the blame, instead of the arsehole who made it possible for it to happen.

I think in the immediate future, the US will do ok, but as things stand, that will probably be short lived. The rest of the world won't take too long to work out that they can trade with one another and possibly do well doing so, at the same time of bigging up their own military might.

All answers point to most people around the world being fucked over and/or blown up and/or choked to death.

WaspInWales wrote:

J Dory wrote:Sorry, I misinterpreted your last post, rereading it I see that. I don't believe Trump will lead America anywhere good, and it saddens me to see that you do, because if you do, he might get elected again. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to share your views, I get where you're coming from to a degree, certainly more than I did before.

I suppose that statement needs to be taken in context.

I imagine many US voters are all for Trump's protectionism, jobs, economy and military might policies, but further down the line, questions about health, environment, trade and the ability to prosper remain.

I personally struggle to see any long term good coming from Trump and his denial of scientific knowledge when it comes to the environment and health. He may well be long gone when people are queueing up for treatment due to exposure to pollutants and PM10 and lower particulates in the breathable atmosphere. No doubt whomever is president when these issues make front page news will get the blame, instead of the arsehole who made it possible for it to happen.

I think in the immediate future, the US will do ok, but as things stand, that will probably be short lived. The rest of the world won't take too long to work out that they can trade with one another and possibly do well doing so, at the same time of bigging up their own military might.

All answers point to most people around the world being fucked over and/or blown up and/or choked to death.

Don't worry. Uncle Bulgaria's social media ramblings are an irrefutable record of the complicity of this womble in the state of things to come. Like none else.

Back to health insurance briefly. When Obamacare was going through the house the republicans voted down the idea of having a public insurer providing a product in every state. Un-American, commie etc. Was this not intended to cap costs and deductibles simply by being a better price for the same cover?

My question is, has any research been done to look at what this product might have cost and how much it might have reduced (if at all) insurance premiums?

Coco wrote:

J Dory wrote:

Coco wrote:

Does it? I thought I made myself clear, but it seems you can't get past the fact that his personality traits aren't the be all end all for most people living in the depths of reality. He is a tool, but that tool is moving my corner of the country in the right direction so far. How much more clear can I be?

Now let's just kiss and make up already.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your last post, rereading it I see that. I don't believe Trump will lead America anywhere good, and it saddens me to see that you do, because if you do, he might get elected again. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to share your views, I get where you're coming from to a degree, certainly more than I did before.

It all remains to be seen. I have hope our President does some degree of good for everyone.

In fairness Coco I think I remember you expressing some degree of anger at Bill Clinton's antics while in power and how it brought shame on the Oval Office. Its kinda hard to understand how that same anger isn't now directed at Trump. If I've remembered that wrong, I apologize.

Given what you've explained about healthcare costs for you and yours, its completely understandable why you would turn away from the Dems. Would you say your experience is typical across America or peculiar to where you live?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Coco wrote:

J Dory wrote:
Sorry, I misinterpreted your last post, rereading it I see that. I don't believe Trump will lead America anywhere good, and it saddens me to see that you do, because if you do, he might get elected again. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to share your views, I get where you're coming from to a degree, certainly more than I did before.

It all remains to be seen. I have hope our President does some degree of good for everyone.

In fairness Coco I think I remember you expressing some degree of anger at Bill Clinton's antics while in power and how it brought shame on the Oval Office. Its kinda hard to understand how that same anger isn't now directed at Trump. If I've remembered that wrong, I apologize.

Given what you've explained about healthcare costs for you and yours, its completely understandable why you would turn away from the Dems. Would you say your experience is typical across America or peculiar to where you live?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I dont think I have ever felt Bill Clinton brought shame to the White House. If you can find that post, I would be curious to see the context. Possibly in the context of Hillary claiming to be a feminist while saying the women involved were telling untruths or calling them vulgar names. Clinton and his alleged extracurricular activites had nothing to do with his policies. I dont think he brought shame to the White House... I do however think his wife has.

I would say it is typical across America based on how many people lost their insurance the same way we did. I cannot give examples of cost increases in other states but I do know it must have been enough to prompt people to vote for Trump. From what I understand, more people became uninsured (varied by state) than actually signed up for Obamacare. So in essence it swapped insuring one demographic while stripping away affordable care for another demographic. Kind of defeated the purpose imo.

Porky, you are in the trenches of the health industry, how do you feel the "Right To Try" is going to go? Do you think it might help some patients?

Hopefully the benefits outweigh the risks for most. I know my good friend would have embraced the chance to try anything to help her very rare, very aggressive colon cancer. She ended up going to Mexico and passing away at one of those cancer clinics. She was 34 with 2 small children.

Coco wrote:Porky, you are in the trenches of the health industry, how do you feel the "Right To Try" is going to go? Do you think it might help some patients?

Hopefully the benefits outweigh the risks for most. I know my good friend would have embraced the chance to try anything to help her very rare, very aggressive colon cancer. She ended up going to Mexico and passing away at one of those cancer clinics. She was 34 with 2 small children.

Not very much. There already exists a conduit for compassionate use that doesn't require FDA approval (https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHe ... efault.htm) and this right to try thing is subject to the same limitations as compassionate use (i.e. must have passed Phase I safety criteria). The right to try thing also already exists in at least 35 states. Making it federal legislation cuts out the need to communicate directly with the FDA (I think), which is a bad thing. The FDA is a far better advocate for patients than the producer/licensee of an investigational new drug. My fear is that the FDA will be undermined to a point that anecdotes will substitute for evidence. I also se no mention of cost or insurance coverage for a right to try course of action. Expect to see a lot of wealthy people use it. It will be a fantastic little boutique investment niche. If you think the current administration views this as a legitimate expression of patient advocacy and not as part of a strategy to deregulate the investigational new drug approval process, I'll have some of what you are smoking please.

canta_brian wrote:Back to health insurance briefly. When Obamacare was going through the house the republicans voted down the idea of having a public insurer providing a product in every state. Un-American, commie etc. Was this not intended to cap costs and deductibles simply by being a better price for the same cover?

My question is, has any research been done to look at what this product might have cost and how much it might have reduced (if at all) insurance premiums?

Plenty. Most predicted metrics support an overall benefit, both health and financial, although because industry has it's fangs so deep into health, it is hard to see how you could stake it without affecting the host. Note that a single public insurer is in fact currently used for Medicare (65-plus years old) and Vetrans Affairs health. Both of these also contribute to a substantial percentage of physician resident training. Both are constant major targets for privatisation by organisations for whom Ayn Rand is right up there with jesus Christ.

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:Porky, you are in the trenches of the health industry, how do you feel the "Right To Try" is going to go? Do you think it might help some patients?

Hopefully the benefits outweigh the risks for most. I know my good friend would have embraced the chance to try anything to help her very rare, very aggressive colon cancer. She ended up going to Mexico and passing away at one of those cancer clinics. She was 34 with 2 small children.

Not very much. There already exists a conduit for compassionate use that doesn't require FDA approval (https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHe ... efault.htm) and this right to try thing is subject to the same limitations as compassionate use (i.e. must have passed Phase I safety criteria). The right to try thing also already exists in at least 35 states. Making it federal legislation cuts out the need to communicate directly with the FDA (I think), which is a bad thing. The FDA is a far better advocate for patients than the producer/licensee of an investigational new drug. My fear is that the FDA will be undermined to a point that anecdotes will substitute for evidence. I also se no mention of cost or insurance coverage for a right to try course of action. Expect to see a lot of wealthy people use it. It will be a fantastic little boutique investment niche. If you think the current administration views this as a legitimate expression of patient advocacy and not as part of a strategy to deregulate the investigational new drug approval process, I'll have some of what you are smoking please.

Ahh.. well that is disheartening.

Disheartening might the best one can say for Trump

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:Porky, you are in the trenches of the health industry, how do you feel the "Right To Try" is going to go? Do you think it might help some patients?

Hopefully the benefits outweigh the risks for most. I know my good friend would have embraced the chance to try anything to help her very rare, very aggressive colon cancer. She ended up going to Mexico and passing away at one of those cancer clinics. She was 34 with 2 small children.

Not very much. There already exists a conduit for compassionate use that doesn't require FDA approval (https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHe ... efault.htm) and this right to try thing is subject to the same limitations as compassionate use (i.e. must have passed Phase I safety criteria). The right to try thing also already exists in at least 35 states. Making it federal legislation cuts out the need to communicate directly with the FDA (I think), which is a bad thing. The FDA is a far better advocate for patients than the producer/licensee of an investigational new drug. My fear is that the FDA will be undermined to a point that anecdotes will substitute for evidence. I also se no mention of cost or insurance coverage for a right to try course of action. Expect to see a lot of wealthy people use it. It will be a fantastic little boutique investment niche. If you think the current administration views this as a legitimate expression of patient advocacy and not as part of a strategy to deregulate the investigational new drug approval process, I'll have some of what you are smoking please.

Ahh.. well that is disheartening.

Sorry about your friend BTW.

Awww Porkster, you do have a soft marshmallow center.. I knew it.

Coco wrote:Awww Porkster, you do have a soft marshmallow center.. I knew it.

Try telling that to those of us on the EMB when we go through a bad patch. Brutal and ruthless.

Mellsblue wrote:

Coco wrote:Awww Porkster, you do have a soft marshmallow center.. I knew it.

Try telling that to those of us on the EMB when we go through a bad patch. Brutal and ruthless.

What??? Say it ain't so!

Coco wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Coco wrote:Awww Porkster, you do have a soft marshmallow center.. I knew it.

Try telling that to those of us on the EMB when we go through a bad patch. Brutal and ruthless.

What??? Say it ain't so!

It's not the best trolling mind, for a good while I thought the poor chap was Welsh

Mellsblue wrote:

Coco wrote:Awww Porkster, you do have a soft marshmallow center.. I knew it.

Try telling that to those of us on the EMB when we go through a bad patch. Brutal and ruthless.

Patch?

Fucking snowflakes.

Libtard

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk