Aetna to pull out of ObamaCare ENTIRELY by 2018 by AURaptor

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
I don't trust an Insurance giant's word on anything. Those f*ckers have been raising rates every quarter since before the ACA. THEY are the real problem and why no matter Dems or Reps, neither will ever fix our health care. Too many jobs and too much power to cut them out of the chain I suppose. They are actually proving how powerful they are by threatening to pull out - now the reps are using that as leverage. More scare tactics - sh*tty people.

First of all, THEY didn't raise rates, the ACA forced them to raise rates. With insane conditions and mandates to carry this but not that sort of coverage, limiting free choice to the consumer, and adding restrictions... the law was DESIGNED to make them fail. Don't you get it ?

And no one is THREATENING anything ! They literally are going out of business because of the ACA. Why ? Because they're losing money, despite the rate increases. That is why they're shutting down! Even when they were initially on board, thinking it was going to be a windfall of promised profits???

They were LIED TO ! We ALL were ! Have you already forgotten that Jonathan Gruber flat out ADMITTED they lied to everyone , or else this b.s. law would never have gotten passed in the first place ??

Quote:

I honestly have not been hearing too many Dems saying, "ObamaCare is the greatest!" I did hear the Dem prez candidate say, "It has flaws, let's fix them." I have heard Dems say, "TrumpCare is worse than TrumpSteaks." I've heard some Reps say that as well. I say fix the problems instead of breaking it again. Go ahead Republicans - you can even take the credit.

==============================

" If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. " Of course Dems are going to minimize the flaws in the ACA, and hyper inflate the problems w/ TrumpCare ( which is still being made, btw, and isn't by any stretch a done deal )

Break it the hell down. It was a disaster from the very start, and actually unconstitutional.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 12, 2017 8:28 AM

RIVERLOVE

Aetna, like all the other profit-driven insurance companies that have pulled out of state exchanges, are actually speeding up their own demise. Full-blown single payer Govt. run health insurance looms as the inevitable successor to Obama/TrumpCare. Krauthammer says it will happen during Trump's presidency. It won't matter to me because I'll be on Medicare by then. Say hello to Socialism.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 12, 2017 8:31 AM

America loves a winner!

Say hello to riots and civil unrest then as well.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 12, 2017 8:40 AM

RIVERLOVE

By who? Conservatives don't riot and cause civil unrest. Only leftist psychos do that, and they will be thrilled with Govt. Single Payer. So what are you talking about?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 12, 2017 9:20 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
By who? Conservatives don't riot and cause civil unrest. Only leftist psychos do that, and they will be thrilled with Govt. Single Payer. So what are you talking about?

Those sick and tired of paying 2,3,4 x what they were paying before the ACA. So far, it's been Leftist Antifa punks, trying to shut down free speech. But this keeps up, the Right is going to have its own answer.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 12, 2017 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
By who? Conservatives don't riot and cause civil unrest. Only leftist psychos do that, and they will be thrilled with Govt. Single Payer. So what are you talking about?

They are only thrilled by their delusional version of Govt. Single payer: less cost - which it won't be, as many available doctors as before ACA - which it won't be, lower deductibles - which there won't be, and all their other utopian free government money demands - which their won't be.
So the same Libtards who have been rioting for any lame excuse will claim another lame excuse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 2:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
They are only thrilled by their delusional version of Govt. Single payer: less cost - which it won't be, as many available doctors as before ACA - which it won't be, lower deductibles - which there won't be, and all their other utopian free government money demands - which their won't be.
So the same Libtards who have been rioting for any lame excuse will claim another lame excuse.

The GOP mantra for decades and decades has been to contract everything out, because "free enterprise" and "market forces" always work "better" than government. But I've seen MANY formerly government functions contracted out (prisons, security, food and janitorial services, labs) and the only thing they were "better" at was providing poorer customer service, lower pay to workers, and amazing profits to the company. They didn't even save the government any money!

The problem with our healthcare being so expensive and so ineffective isn't necessarily a lack of doctors (USA is low on the list with 2.3, but Japan is even lower with 2.0 and Singapore at 1.4) http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1
,000-people or lack of facilities (except in rural areas) but the fact that healthcare is controlled by near-monopolies of pharmas, insurances, and giant hospital chains, and healthcare flows to money. This has left large portions of the population unserved, and created a huge reservoir of sick people. Also, the homeless/ mentally ill create a huge burden on emergency rooms (and jails); we need a better way to reduce our homeless population.

Anyway, one way to control costs is to have the USA government be the single payer, and negotiate for better rates. That would eliminate at least 15% of the extraneous costs right there.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 4:49 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The repubs here sound like a bunch of hillbilly rubes.

Somehow they failed to notice that there's an entire world out there, that all other developed nations out there have some form of government healthcare, that even developing nations do as well, and that people with government healthcare are healthier at less cost.

Care to try addressing the facts, again?

Or do you shoot nothing but blanks?

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:
They are only thrilled by their delusional version of Govt. Single payer: less cost - which it won't be, as many available doctors as before ACA - which it won't be, lower deductibles - which there won't be, and all their other utopian free government money demands - which their won't be.
So the same Libtards who have been rioting for any lame excuse will claim another lame excuse.

The GOP mantra for decades and decades has been to contract everything out, because "free enterprise" and "market forces" always work "better" than government. But I've seen MANY formerly government functions contracted out (prisons, security, food and janitorial services, labs) and the only thing they were "better" at was providing poorer customer service, lower pay to workers, and amazing profits to the company. They didn't even save the government any money!

They saved the government money in the forms of liabilities, lawsuits and legacy costs.
I do not agree that prisons should be farmed out without much better oversight and monitoring. I HAVE heard that inmate rape occurs less in private prisons than the rampant problem in government incarceration, but I am not sure all of the evidecnce is in.
Quote:

The problem with our healthcare being so expensive and so ineffective isn't necessarily a lack of doctors (USA is low on the list with 2.3, but Japan is even lower with 2.0 and Singapore at 1.4) http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1
,000-people or lack of facilities (except in rural areas)

are you trying to be disingenuous? Comparing per capita data with Japan and Singapore, or any other high-density population? Are you pretending that the larger geographical range of America does not require a lower per capita rate of Doctors? Maybe compare to Canada, which has a population density less than that of USA.
Quote:

but the fact that healthcare is controlled by near-monopolies of pharmas, insurances, and giant hospital chains, and healthcare flows to money. This has left large portions of the population unserved, and created a huge reservoir of sick people. Also, the homeless/ mentally ill create a huge burden on emergency rooms (and jails); we need a better way to reduce our homeless population.
Are you forgetting that the liberals already solved this entire issue? The solution was to release the mentally ill from hospitals to be free from homes, aka homeless.

Quote:

Anyway, one way to control costs is to have the USA government be the single payer, and negotiate for better rates. That would eliminate at least 15% of the extraneous costs right there.

Further example of what I was posting about. Remember how Obama explained to you that numbers just don't work out the way that liberals think, when real math is employed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 6:03 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Are you forgetting that the liberals already solved this entire issue? The solution was to release the mentally ill from hospitals to be free from homes, aka homeless

That was Ronald Reagan.

1981
Under President Ronald Reagan, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act repeals Carter's community health legislation and establishes block grants for the states, ending the federal government's role in providing services to the mentally ill. Federal mental-health spending decreases by 30 percent.
1984
An Ohio-based study finds that up to 30 percent of homeless people are thought to suffer from serious mental illness.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/timeline-mental-health-ame
rica

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 6:09 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The repubs here sound like a bunch of hillbilly rubes.

Somehow they failed to notice that there's an entire world out there, that all other developed nations out there have some form of government healthcare, that even developing nations do as well, and that people with government healthcare are healthier at less cost.

And yet, where do all the world leaders come for life saving surgeries and treatment ? Cuba ? Canada ?

This empty mantra " they do it, so why can't we ? " is just the sort of nonsense moms and dads have heard for ever. This keeping up with the Jones' is a sorry excuse when one is trying to stand for freedom. Govt control of our lives is the last thing We The People need.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 6:49 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And yet, where do all the world leaders come for life saving surgeries and treatment ? Cuba ? Canada ?

**ALL** the world leaders? I dare you to name me a dozen. Too hard? How about 6. Still too hard? How about just one - in the last 5 years. C'mon big boy - show us you're not just empty bluff.

But you DO make a point, even if it's not the one you intended. Assuming you have GLOBAL LEVEL PERSONAL WEALTH - you can buy anything in the US.

That doesn't help the rest of us poor schmucks get healthcare on a working person's salary, though.

Quote:
This empty mantra " they do it, so why can't we ? " is just the sort of nonsense moms and dads have heard for ever. This keeping up with the Jones' is a sorry excuse when one is trying to stand for freedom. Govt control of our lives is the last thing We The People need.

So you WANT people to be sick and impoverished?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 8:22 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 4:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
They are only thrilled by their delusional version of Govt. Single payer: less cost - which it won't be, as many available doctors as before ACA - which it won't be, lower deductibles - which there won't be, and all their other utopian free government money demands - which their won't be.
So the same Libtards who have been rioting for any lame excuse will claim another lame excuse.= JSF

The GOP mantra for decades and decades has been to contract everything out, because "free enterprise" and "market forces" always work "better" than government. But I've seen MANY formerly government functions contracted out (prisons, security, food and janitorial services, labs) and the only thing they were "better" at was providing poorer customer service, lower pay to workers, and amazing profits to the company. They didn't even save the government any money!= SIGNY
They saved the government money in the forms of liabilities, lawsuits and legacy costs.= JSF

If you look at the "cost" of liabilities vs. the "savings" of privatization, privatization may not work out so well.

Quote:
I do not agree that prisons should be farmed out without much better oversight and monitoring. I HAVE heard that inmate rape occurs less in private prisons than the rampant problem in government incarceration, but I am not sure all of the evidecnce is in. JSF

I'm not sure there's any evidence at all.

I'll add communication services to the list of things that are often done better and cheaper by government. Other infrastructure. Space exploration. Not everything SHOULD be "privatized".

Quote:
The problem with our healthcare being so expensive and so ineffective isn't necessarily a lack of doctors (USA is low on the list with 2.3, but Japan is even lower with 2.0 and Singapore at 1.4) http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1
,000-people or lack of facilities (except in rural areas) - SIGNY

Are you trying to be disingenuous? Comparing per capita data with Japan and Singapore, or any other high-density population? Are you pretending that the larger geographical range of America does not require a lower per capita rate of Doctors? Maybe compare to Canada, which has a population density less than that of USA. - JSF

Canada, 2,1
Australia 2.5
Finland (a whole lot of thing there!) 2.6
Greenland 1.1

Quote:
but the fact that healthcare is controlled by near-monopolies of pharmas, insurances, and giant hospital chains, and healthcare flows to money. This has left large portions of the population unserved, and created a huge reservoir of sick people. Also, the homeless/ mentally ill create a huge burden on emergency rooms (and jails); we need a better way to reduce our homeless population.= SIGNY

Are you forgetting that the liberals already solved this entire issue? The solution was to release the mentally ill from hospitals to be free from homes, aka homeless.= JSF

With KIKI om this one: That was Ronald Reagan.

Quote:
Anyway, one way to control costs is to have the USA government be the single payer, and negotiate for better rates. That would eliminate at least 15% of the extraneous costs right there. - SIGNY

Further example of what I was posting about. Remember how Obama explained to you that numbers just don't work out the way that liberals think, when real math is employed.- JSF

No. I never committed Obama's lies, rationalizations, and self-justifications to memory, so that one slipped by me. But since I don't really remember what he said, maybe YOU can explain how the "real math" is supposed to work?

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 5:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anyway, both GOP and Dems are treating this like the hot potato that it is

"You fix it!"
"No, YOU fix it!"

They both realize that NEITHER one of them can fix the healthcare system while still pleasing their insurance, pharma, and hospital-corporation campaign contributors. The Obama tried mightily to thread that needle, but Obamacare just wasn't able to bridge the gap.

There are a few possible alternatives:

Re-introducing competition. Frankly, that ship sailed years ago, when the govt approved so many M&As. And once monopolies occur, it seems to me that you can't un-ring that bell. Just look at the breakup of Ma Bell. See better service at cheaper prices? Yeah, me neither. I'm not sure what went wrong, but it's worthy of a study.

State-to-state control. This sounds a little better. Let each state figure out how it's going to regulate healthcare. There will be a diversity of plans. I'm just not sure that individual states are more responsive than the Federal government.

Federal health insurance. This works well until the Federal government - like the NHS- decides to defund the health services or (worse) take out ridiculous loans or (worse still) behave like our current Federal government: serve the corporations at the expense of the people.

Clearly, "the market" hasn't worked for healthcare for a long while. It has not served as a feedback loop to provide better service at cheaper prices. The problem is now how to build in different/ better feedback to make sure that the system remains responsive. The Founding Fathers bet on democracy and The Vote, but that solution was corrupted very quickly.

I'm not at all happy reaching the conclusion that state or Federal governments seem to be the only viable option. I'm still looking for an alternative, or for ways to make govt insurance responsive to the people, and not just hostages to the rest of the healthcare system (pharma, hospital corps etc.) It really is a knotty problem.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 5:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Care to not be a lying sack of shit? No? Ok!- GSTRING

Wow, you have a permanent hard-on for KIKI, don't you? You keep claiming that KIKI is somehow "lying", and yet I don't see anything like that in this thread, nor any of the others where you claim the same thing. So refresh my memory - point out where KIKI "lied" so badly that you got a permanent kink in your psyche about it.

BTW, if you're wondering why I sometimes call you "G" and sometimes "GSTRING", it's related to the quality of your post. If you're being a troll, I call you "GSTRING".

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 11:10 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And yet, where do all the world leaders come for life saving surgeries and treatment ? Cuba ? Canada ?
**ALL** the world leaders? I dare you to name me a dozen. Too hard? How about 6. Still too hard? How about just one - in the last 5 years. C'mon big boy - show us you're not just empty bluff.

Why the attitude ? What , do you feel someone slighted you ? Seriously, it's a well known fact that those who need the best care come to the United States. What difference does it matter how many I can name ? Doesn't change the fact, does it ?

( Canadian ) Premier Danny Williams... “This was my heart, my choice and my health. I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.” He is correct and we also do not want to sign away that right.

He also explained a key reason why he didn’t stay in Canada. He needed an immediate operation. Williams said, “I would’ve been criticized if I had stayed in Canada and had been perceived as jumping a line or a wait list. … I accept that. That’s public life.”

And as for the rest of your rant... so not interested. Not even worth my time to bother w/ your ridiculous trolling / cry for attention.

Oh,and btw, are you saying they no longer come here, " in the past 5 years ", BECAUSE of ObamaCare ? Meh, you might be right about that one.

But back to the POINT... the collapse of the Insurance companies was fully planned and expected by Obama. It was part of the big lie Americans were told in order to get his terrible law passed in the first place. Useful idiots will try as they might to blame ' greedy ' insurance companies, but the fact is , this is exactly how the law was intended to work, by forcing them out.

So much for freedom.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 11:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
.... Seriously, it's a well known fact- AUR

The problem with "well known facts" is that they may be well-known but not necessarily factual.

Quote:
But back to the POINT... the collapse of the Insurance companies was fully planned and expected by Obama. It was part of the big lie Americans were told in order to get his terrible law passed in the first place. Useful idiots will try as they might to blame ' greedy ' insurance companies, but the fact is , this is exactly how the law was intended to work, by forcing them out.- AUR

If this was all planned out, you would think that Dems would have some better alternatives waiting in the wings. Do they? And it seems the GOP should have been better-prepared a well. Are they?

This seems to me more like an unplanned collapse, with no solutions in sight that don't cross serious campaign contributor lines.

Quote:
So much for freedom. -RAP

Freedom for who, to do what? Quite often, giving one group "freedom" means denying it to others. IMHO

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And it seems the GOP should have been better-prepared a well. Are they?

Wells? We don't need no water. They're not preparing better wells. They're too busy preparing better Walls!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 12:40 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Seriously, it's a well known fact that those who need the best care come to the United States. What difference does it matter how many I can name ? Doesn't change the fact, does it ?

It's a question of evidence. Without evidence, I can't accept claims as facts.
The way you put it - it must be really common. There should be examples everywhere, that readily come to mind, or that you can easily find through google, or that your right-wing sources have pre-compiled for you.
Anyway, I looked. And I couldn't find one - not one - single example through a general search. Now, I did have a vague recollection that Ferdinand Marcos got medical treatment in the US - and here it is "he was admitted for medical treatment in New York in October 1979". But that was 38 years ago.
So, where's the evidence to support your claims?

As for Williams - he could easily have had the surgery in Canada, by world-renowned experts who pioneered the techniques:

Quote:
If it turned out he had needed some esoteric procedure not available in Canada, I figured the critics would have a field day.

But the reality appears to be the opposite of what I feared. Williams needed an operation on his mitral valve. His office admits the procedure was, in fact, available in Canada. It’s more than that, though: Canadian cardiac surgeons happen to be renowned for their expertise in valve repair.

WHY he chose to come to the US - perhaps he wanted to recover in his Florida condo - is something he didn't share with the rest of us. But it wasn't a necessity.
And this one case doesn't support your overblown and entirely untrue hyperbole that **ALL** the world leaders come here.

Quote:
And as for the rest of your rant...

Rant? Where?

I just pointed out is that 99.999% of Americans don't have the money it takes to travel globally and afford literally anything money can buy.

Quote:
Oh,and btw, are you saying they no longer come here, " in the past 5 years ", BECAUSE of ObamaCare ?

No.

Quote:
Meh, you might be right about that one.

I originally had a mild dislike for Obamacare, but I was willing to see how things worked out. It looks like the deep cavern of unmet medical need took far more money to try to fill than anyone anticipated. It looks like we need a plan B - but not a plan that's worse.

Quote:
But back to the POINT... the collapse of the Insurance companies was fully planned and expected by Obama.

That would be stupid.

Quote:
So much for freedom.

If you don't have an explanation at hand as to how this relates to 'freedom', perhaps you could link one of your right-wing sources.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
Are you forgetting that the liberals already solved this entire issue? The solution was to release the mentally ill from hospitals to be free from homes, aka homeless
That was Ronald Reagan.

1981
Under President Ronald Reagan, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act repeals Carter's community health legislation and establishes block grants for the states, ending the federal government's role in providing services to the mentally ill. Federal mental-health spending decreases by 30 percent.
1984
An Ohio-based study finds that up to 30 percent of homeless people are thought to suffer from serious mental illness.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/timeline-mental-health-ame
rica

From the 1963 Kennedy Reform Legislation to 1977, the mentally ill population had dropped by 70%, from over a half million down to 160,000 nationwide. The outrage spurred by the film "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" had liberals all in uproar, and most of the mentally ill were out of the hospitals before Reagan took office, let alone when he reduced the excessive costs applied to the meager few.

https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/media/bestmedia/asylum-to-cell-satel.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 3:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
From the 1963 Kennedy Reform Legislation to 1977

Kennedy was killed in 1963

Quote:
The outrage spurred by the film "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"

Which premiered in 1975.

Timeline doesn't work. There must have been other reasons for the decline

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Timeline doesn't work. There must have been other reasons for the decline

Blame it on the Mandela Effect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 3:27 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"From the 1963 Kennedy Reform Legislation to 1977, the mentally ill population had dropped by 70%, from over a half million down to 160,000 nationwide."

"First-generation antipsychotics, known as typical antipsychotics, were discovered in the 1950s. Most second-generation drugs, known as atypical antipsychotics, have been developed more recently, although the first atypical antipsychotic, clozapine, was discovered in the 1960s and introduced clinically in the 1970s." (google)

"During the 1980s, an additional 40,000 beds in state mental hospitals were shut down. The patients being sent to community facilities were no longer those who were moderately well-functioning or elderly; rather, they included the more difficult, chronic patients from the hospitals’ back wards. These patients were often younger than patients previously discharged, less likely to respond to medication, and less likely to be aware of their need for medication."
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199988714/?tag=saloncom08-20
American Psychosis: How the Federal Government Destroyed the Mental Illness Treatment System 1st Edition

It's true that deinstitutionalization started before Reagan, especially in California. What Reagan did was defund federal dollars to states to care for the mentally ill. That did two things: 1) community treatment which had been part of the original concept was no longer available in quantity to meet the demand, and 2) it became uneconomic to keep hardcore psychotics in hospitals, and so they were released into the community (versus depressed or mildly confused people, or those with disabilities, who had been released earlier to 'group homes', etc)

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 4:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
From the 1963 Kennedy Reform Legislation to 1977
Kennedy was killed in 1963

very good, grasshopper. 1963 is the year John F. Kennedy was killed. Was your history a little fuzzy, or you thought nobody else knew this? He was killed in November. The day before November, he signed into Law that which I mentioned.
Quote:
Quote:
The outrage spurred by the film "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"
Which premiered in 1975.
very good grasshopper. It was released in 1975. Only 13 years after the novel was published, and only 12 year after the Broadway show. Many people consider films to have a much wider audience and appeal than book or Broadway.
Although most reports show that this population had dropped to 160,000 by 1977, the outage of the systematic institutionalism further decreased the ranks.
You might be aware that 1975 was more than 5 years before 1981, when Reagan had his first budget - which was applied to the Fiscal Year 1982 (6 years after 1975).

Quote:

Timeline doesn't work. There must have been other reasons for the decline

I don't see the quandary you have with the timeline.

Also, kiki's reply shows that during all of the 1980's, only 40,000 mental health beds were shut down, or 25% of 160,000 - further eroding her erroneous presumption.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 5:14 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Raw numbers alone don't tell the story.

It was common for people to be institutionalized for depression ("The Snake Pit"). Remove those people and you drop the number of institutionalized people - without dramatically increasing the number of homeless people. It was also common to institutionalize people for retardation and cerebral palsy. But - as the DOCUMENTED AND LINKED history indicates - these were considered 'easy' patients to care for in a privatized group home setting, so that they, too, when 'deinstitutionalized' and sent to a group home, didn't increase the number of homeless.

OTOH, untreatable schizophrenics - the last to be deinstitutionalized - DID add to the homeless population when Reagan cut federal funding for mental health.

It's nice to see that, sometimes, karma works as it should. Reagan was shot by an untreated schizophrenic, and died a mindless worm, of Alzheimer's.

Care to try addressing FACTS again?

Or do you shoot nothing but blanks?

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2017 9:33 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
.... Seriously, it's a well known fact- AUR
The problem with "well known facts" is that they may be well-known but not necessarily factual.

Quote:
But back to the POINT... the collapse of the Insurance companies was fully planned and expected by Obama. It was part of the big lie Americans were told in order to get his terrible law passed in the first place. Useful idiots will try as they might to blame ' greedy ' insurance companies, but the fact is , this is exactly how the law was intended to work, by forcing them out.- AUR
If this was all planned out, you would think that Dems would have some better alternatives waiting in the wings. Do they? And it seems the GOP should have been better-prepared a well. Are they?

This seems to me more like an unplanned collapse, with no solutions in sight that don't cross serious campaign contributor lines.

Quote:
So much for freedom. -RAP
Freedom for who, to do what? Quite often, giving one group "freedom" means denying it to others. IMHO

Freedom isn't GIVEN, Sig. It's inalienable, to ALL of us. The govt's job is NOT to dole out Freedom, to this or that group, but to protect it, for ALL.

Ask the Dems why they aren't ready to deal w/ O-Care. Some are, saying they want to 'fix it, not repeal it ', while others are simply mute on the issue, still playing along as if it's the greatest law ever passed.

Letting Obama enjoy his "win", for a while longer, as it were. Then they'll come around , blame the GOP for its failures, and push for single payer. That's been the play all along.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2017 9:45 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:

But back to the POINT... the collapse of the Insurance companies was fully planned and expected by Obama.

" That would be stupid "

And yet, stupid is exactly what we have !

Obama

Gov't does not fund what it does not run. Obama is talking out of both sides of his slender little ass.

Quote:

So much for freedom.

" If you don't have an explanation at hand as to how this relates to 'freedom', perhaps you could link one of your right-wing sources. "

You've successfully fought off understanding the concept of freedom this long, I can't help you now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2017 12:44 PM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
By who? Conservatives don't riot and cause civil unrest. Only leftist psychos do that, and they will be thrilled with Govt. Single Payer. So what are you talking about?

Those sick and tired of paying 2,3,4 x what they were paying before the ACA. So far, it's been Leftist Antifa punks, trying to shut down free speech. But this keeps up, the Right is going to have its own answer.

Okay. What do you have in mind?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2017 7:49 PM

America loves a winner!

Let's see how things play out first.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2017 8:01 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So much for freedom.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
If you don't have an explanation at hand as to how this relates to 'freedom', perhaps you could link one of your right-wing sources.

Quote:
You've successfully fought off understanding the concept of freedom this long, I can't help you now.

I understand the concept of freedom.

I just don't understand how a medical system that leaves 1 out of every 5 people without care, and bankrupts both individuals and the government, relates to 'freedom'.

But if you can't explain it yourself, perhaps you can provide a link to an explanation.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2017 8:49 PM

America loves a winner!

I don't need a link. I have my own thoughts and views, 1kiki. A " link " ? Seriously ? You only will accept what someone else says, and not me ?

As I said, it'd be lost on you anyways, no matter what I posted.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2017 11:18 PM

I for one hope the whole system just falls apart.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Freedom isn't GIVEN, Sig. It's inalienable, to ALL of us.

RAPPY, one of your biggest problems is that you never define your terms. As a result, you never really know what you're saying.

"Freedom" is "inalienable" ...

"Inalienable": not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied

If freedom is so inalienable, why can it be taken away so easily?

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:01 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
If freedom is so inalienable, why can it be taken away so easily?

Gee, I dunno. Ask the N.Koreans. Ask the women of Saudi Arabia. Ask the fine folks in Venezuela, or Cuba...

I know exactly what I'm saying, Siggy. You're just not up to speed.

Try reading some of what our Founders of this country wrote. They had an idea. And it's one with which I fully agree.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Freedom isn't GIVEN, Sig. It's inalienable, to ALL of us.
RAPPY, one of your biggest problems is that you never define your terms. As a result, you never really know what you're saying.

"Freedom" is "inalienable" ...

"Inalienable": not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied

If freedom is so inalienable, why can it be taken away so easily?

Gee, I dunno. Ask the N.Koreans. Ask the women of Saudi Arabia. Ask the fine folks in Venezuela, or Cuba...

I know exactly what I'm saying, Siggy. You're just not up to speed.

Try reading some of what our Founders of this country wrote. They had an idea. And it's one with which I fully agree.

Perhaps what RapKnight is trying to say, in a short-handed versions, is that he has a belief. A belief that humans have an Inalienable Right of Freedom, granted to us by God and not by Government.

For those choosing to live without Freedom, such as N Koreans, they may have forfeited this right in order to be less contrary, much like modern Democrats, Progressives, other Communists.

Forgive me if I imply that I'm speaking for RapKnight - merely elaborating.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:28 PM

America loves a winner!

JSF - you honor me w/ your elaboration.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 20, 2017 5:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Freedom isn't GIVEN, Sig. It's inalienable, to ALL of us. - RAPPY

RAPPY, one of your biggest problems is that you never define your terms. As a result, you never really know what you're saying.
"Freedom" is "inalienable" ...
"Inalienable": not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied
If freedom is so inalienable, why can it be taken away so easily?- SIGNY

Gee, I dunno. Ask the N.Koreans. Ask the women of Saudi Arabia. Ask the fine folks in Venezuela, or Cuba... I know exactly what I'm saying, Siggy. You're just not up to speed. Try reading some of what our Founders of this country wrote. They had an idea. And it's one with which I fully agree. - RAPPY

Perhaps what RapKnight is trying to say, in a short-handed versions, is that he has a belief. A belief that humans have an Inalienable Right of Freedom, granted to us by God and not by Government. For those choosing to live without Freedom, such as N Koreans, they may have forfeited this right in order to be less contrary, much like modern Democrats, Progressives, other Communists. Forgive me if I imply that I'm speaking for RapKnight - merely elaborating.= JSF

What you both posted is clear and mud to me, and I know that you THINK you have an idea, but apparently you can't explain it, even to yourselves.

JSF - you explained the word "freedom" with the word "belief" and then "freedom" (again). RAPPY implied that it was an "idea" that the Founding father had"....

So, are you talking about the right to vote?
Are you talking about the Bill of Rights? i.e. free speech, freedom of the press, etc?
Or are you talking about something else?

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 20, 2017 8:57 AM

America loves a winner!

Siggy, just curious, but were you even born in the USA ? If so , were you never taught anything of the Revolutionary period, the Founders, the Federalist Papers... anything like that ring a bell ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Siggy, just curious, but were you even born in the USA ? If so , were you never taught anything of the Revolutionary period, the Founders, the Federalist Papers... anything like that ring a bell ?

It ALL rings a bell.

I've certainly read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and parts of the Federalist papers.

I read the foundational philosopher on which much of the Founding Father's thoughts were based....The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. https://www.amazon.com/Social-Contract-Jean-Jacques-Rousseau/dp/149617
268X

I read The Founding Fathers by ME Bradford which even JO thought was a worthwhile read. https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Fathers-Framers-Constitution-Revised/d
p/0700606572

Most of the discussions refer to the relationship between people and government or people and the church ... a reasonable POV because at the time absolute monarchies were the form of government, the churches were very powerful. But very little discussion about the relationship of people and corporations (the FF were mostly against corporations) or people and banks or people and people. There's been a lot of discussion about what "freedom" means or whether or not it even exists at all. I would like to know what YOU mean.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 20, 2017 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Siggy, just curious, but were you even born in the USA ? If so , were you never taught anything of the Revolutionary period, the Founders, the Federalist Papers... anything like that ring a bell ?

Well.
I was thinking of mentioning if maybe you wish children were educated in American Public schools. But Siggy seems to represent a severe schism which I did not know was so deeply embedded. I had thought her more educated or mature.
But you have laid out the void in her foundation. How can somebody bridge such a gap? I conjure some form of extreme radical sect of education was at fault.

I had also conjured that many Millenials and such might think that the Declaration of Independence was written after seeing the film Braveheart - that nobody else had considered the concept of Freedom and it's meaning. For William Wallace and many others enslaved around the world, the only Freedom they might strive for is death, and foregoing freedom for the mere ability to exist, stay alive, is the only other choice.

Perhaps Siggy is quibbling about the difference between Inalienable Rights and Unalienable Rights. Some sources differentiate the definitions as "Un-" being incapable of being alienated (sold or transferred), and "In-" being not capable of being alienated WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ONE POSSESSING THE RIGHTS. Many references seem to interchange these terms, depending partly whether American English, British English, King's English, Common English, or translations to or from another language.
Inalienable was used in Declaration of Independence drafts by Jefferson and John Adams, as well as inscribed upon the Jefferson Memorial, but Unalienable was used in the final version of the DoI.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 20, 2017 4:50 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Myself, I find that people are most easily bamboozled by words which they FEEL deeply but don't actually understand.

Freedom, hope, and god, are examples.

We go oversees to kill people in foreign countries because ... 'freedom'. We donate to or support people because ... 'hope' (and sometimes 'change'). We justify what we do because ... 'god'.

If people demanded an exact explanation as to how, specifically, their cooperation was going to create a particular result - instead of settling for emotional but vague words like freedom, hope, (and change), and god - we'd be a lot better off.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 20, 2017 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Siggy, just curious, but were you even born in the USA ? If so , were you never taught anything of the Revolutionary period, the Founders, the Federalist Papers... anything like that ring a bell ?
It ALL rings a bell.

I've certainly read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and parts of the Federalist papers.

Most of the discussions refer to the relationship between people and government

OK.
Quote:
or people and the church

Wow. Between people and the Church. Are you not missing the part about between the government and the Church, and confusing this important division with "people and Church?" The Declaration was for Independence from ENGLAND (not France, or other European Governments influenced by The Social Contract), which had declared itself to BE The Church (helloooo - anybody heard of Communism, Socialism, etc?), and the ideals were to disentangle Colonists from the subjugation of a pre-assigned religion from their Government/King.
There seems to be some missing component in your understanding, which may reveal why others who are taught as you were cannot comprehend the Freedom of Religion.
Quote:
... a reasonable POV because at the time absolute monarchies were the form of government,
OK.
Quote:
the churches were very powerful.
Really?
Like how the Church of Rome (The Papists) was able to reign throughout the British Empire?
And English subjects were free to associate with the Roman Church of Christianity (post-HenryVIII)?
Quote:
But very little discussion about the relationship of people and corporations (the FF were mostly against corporations)
because corporations WERE the Government (hellooooo - remember Communism, Socialism)
Quote:
or people and banks
because banks WERE the Government

Quote:
or people and people. There's been a lot of discussion about what "freedom" means or whether or not it even exists at all. I would like to know what YOU mean.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 20, 2017 5:24 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
because corporations WERE the Government (hellooooo - remember Communism, Socialism)

Are you talking about England ca 1776 and the American revolution? Because 'communism' and 'socialism' were 100 years in the future in 1776.

I've been trying to follow the conversation, but your posts are so scrambled, I have NO idea WHAT you're trying to say. This is only the latest example. Your other posts were just as uninterpretable.

You seem to be referring to something. How about you rephrase your argument with some rough timelines attached?

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 20, 2017 5:30 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
But very little discussion about the relationship of people and corporations (the FF were mostly against corporations) or people and banks or people and people

Because they realized the far greater evil was that of govt impeding on the lives of men.Unlike govt's, who have the force of power to enforce their will , corporations are actually quite limited in what they can do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 20, 2017 5:53 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
corporations are actually quite limited in what they can do

Back in Jefferson's day, if you didn't want to work for someone else, you could head out to the wilderness and try and make a living for yourself, by yourself.

Today, no one can escape the power of the corporations. If it wasn't for the government making sure we don't outright starve to death on the street, our lives would be entirely at their mercy. Work for them - or die. We work at their sufferance, buy their goods at their prices, and even live by their laws the government writes for their benefit.

We live in a global company town. I think their power is near complete.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 20, 2017 9:23 PM

Government and Corporations are pretty much the same thing. Just enough to separate them to make it look like separate entities on paper.

Trying to live outside of them isn't exactly living in the Savage Land yet, but we are quickly heading to that Brave New World.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 12:50 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Government and Corporations are pretty much the same thing.

Maybe it's not 'government' per se, but OUR government. And since we live in a democracy, its OUR people voting that way.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 21, 2017 1:31 AM