default
Tue, 09/26/2017 - 13:38
11763
Health Care Bill
ad
Default - Use Group's defaults.
I'm actually glad it failed. Any opinions out there?
- Bookmark
- 0
- 0
I'm actually glad it failed. Any opinions out there?
StevebJohnath Grubber wrote the ACA, he himself described it as a scam.
Good grief...trigger words, you need a safe space now pale?
Seriously I thought this was a "gloves off but keep it gentlemen like" and all I hear is whining from you.
I'm in a similar situation as you and as a business owner I am just thankful not one who selected businesses to own that require employees. Many failed soon after the aca was enacted because they could not afford paying for their employees.
No memory loss to understand that only tyrannical governance requires one to buy something they don't want or face a penalty.
If you dig that kind of leadership keep voting for it.
Thankfully there are far more people that realized that was completely ridiculous and why we have a new administration that is cutting away the cancerous decisions of his predecessor.
It was/is a scam.
If it was not a scam he would not have required creating a penalty to FORCE compliance.
So much for freedom and choice.
I don't care what the title says. Keep being a smart ass with me and you will not have to worry about safe places.
He's not getting a second term. If he makes it through term one, the Republicans will find a better candidate that can actually shit done. You and I feel differently on the previous administration, so let's leave that at that.
I'm all for more effective control, which includes pathways to citizenship, etc. My ancestors learned walls don't really do much several centuries ago, so his "build a wall" approach doesn't scream "effective" to me. As for the taxes, Ha. Ha. I've been reviewing the proposition he made, and I'll await until the actual legislation is put forth before I comment on it more in depth. But the vague ass plan that he's put forward actually has my tax burden increasing from the minute it's passed and then even more down the line, so unless something drastically changes I'm not too pumped.
Former glory? Like when exactly? When has America stopped being glorious?
Trump plowed through larger more "politically inept" naysayers than you or pale and is doing a fantastic job bringing back America to its "expected norm" since you are not into my other terminology.
You can leave out your thoughts opinions on whomever as you like but I will state my thoughts as I see fit.. if you don't like it or are unable to contain yourself to debate it peacefully stop coming back to read my posts.
Unlike when the aca was inacted, you have a CHOICE and you won't get penalized for either option ;)
Well the "let'em come in without following our countries laws" is clearly HIGHLY ineffective in comparison so the wall or tighter security is best.
No one has a RIGHT to be in any country not of their origin.
No one has a RIGHT to be welcomed just because they wish it. Its not being mean spirited or anything of the like, it is merely fact.
Every country on the planet has immigration laws in place and several have much stricter regulation than we do here in America. If we are to go back to the "Ellis Island" approach were you have to prove your worth, be willing to adopt American culture and values and I would also add have conversational English I would be willing for that to be the "stream lined approach".
Crashing the gate to a wedding does not make you an invited guest!
Invading someone's home does not make you a welcome person upon entry!
All unwelcomed non-vetted entries to almost any place has consequences and if we have rules in AMERICA that law abiding citizens and legal residents have to follow...damn straight everyone else better be doing the same.
The thousands of dollars, the countless medical, criminal background checks, strenuously mind numbing process to come here LEGALLY is for a reason.
Those who have come here under those extremely challenging "legal immigration requirements" followed the rules and there should be little to no exception including DACA.
You don't have to like what I have mentioned but it is 100% accurate and lawful in relation to immigration in this country and cannot be disputed as such.
Any person that thinks otherwise should join a group willing to vouch for illegals entering where they will then be forced to be legally responsible for what that person does in the country, pay for any damages, pay for their social wellbeing and cover costs associated for keeping a roof over their head and food in their bellies too. Not to mention put them on YOUR insurance plan since you all love it so much too.
If you are not willing to do so then keep quite.
You know the country has immigration laws that keep us safer and help us minimize ill intended persons from getting here legally as well as illegally.
Sure, and he still lost the popular vote by a couple million. You keep mentioning this great time of America, but you can't pinpoint what this time period was, why is that?
I keep leaving it out because it'll derail the convo.
No one has a RIGHT to be in any country not of their origin.
No one has a RIGHT to be welcomed just because they wish it. Its not being mean spirited or anything of the like, it is merely fact.
Every country on the planet has immigration laws in place and several have much stricter regulation than we do here in America. If we are to go back to the "Ellis Island" approach were you have to prove your worth, be willing to adopt American culture and values and I would also add have conversational English I would be willing for that to be the "stream lined approach".
By your standards my family should not have been allowed entry into this country,as they had no higher education, about $600 total in their pockets, spoke no English, had no work, etc.
See this is what I don't understand about the hard on the right has for DACA. They were children when they came here, and grew up here much like I did. This is the only country they know, why the fuck would we send them back to a place they have no ties to?
Yes, the country has immigration laws, and for the most part they work well. Why you think building a wall will change that is beyond me. Illegal immigration will always occur, and this build a wall bullshit is targeting one group of immigrants. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, make this country better. You seem to have this strange belief that we can completely close off our borders and allow people in one by one, which will never happen. Your fantasy of such strict border controls reminds me of the strict immigration controls in former soviet bloc states... So much good that did eh?
TLDNR. You really should try abbreviating and staying on one point. I am not going to read through a whole opinion piece every time you post.
Thankfully you have that choice...and without penalty I might add
You write what you feel is necessary and I will do the same.
I don't have a requirement to get it done within a set number of words or lines to appease you. If you read what I write, cool and if not nbd either.
Yea, when I hear shit like Make America great again, I realize I am not dealing with a person attached to reality.
StevebGet used to being wrong
LOL. I may have been wrong once but don't get cocky.
StevebImpastable is always wrong. You like 4 times only so far. Seriously whether you think he's doing a good job or not, he has no real competition next time around. And the left just keeps pushing things that aren't very popular with most people.
I agree the left is not doing anything to counter. But his threats will come from the right unless somehow someone on the left catches fire.
StevebI think he could lose if a third party became very popular and took enough votes from the Repulicans to let the Dems win. But even third party candidates are very unpopular right now.
The only "third" I could see being a threat is Bernie. But his age is going to be even more of an issue in 20.
I don't think Bernie is planning another run, but who knows what would happen. Unless the left gets its shit together, I don't see any attractive candidates. If Michelle ran she could probably garner a lot of support on the left, but I don't believe she intends on it.
His biggest threat is from the right, either being replaced during his term or a challenger during the 2020.
I mean as much as I hate what pence stands for, dear God do miss having presidents argue against facts than argue by blowing shit out their asses.
Maybe Dan Rather. He has Built up a huge following.
StevebMichelle is very unattractive
Of course you'd say that. I'm still waiting for my free helicopter ride.
A free and open market is what resolves all issues in almost all areas of life!
The second we implement a "government run" single payer (ie: MONOPOLY) we effectively lessen the quality of product/service, increase the price substantially and minimize the all important option of CHOICE.
Would love to see the opportunity to purchase interstate programs as keeping them "state only" lessens the competitive nature by which all things have a chance of being cheaper and far greater in terms of product/service provided.
Those that want Socialized Healthcare need only (truly research) ask most Canadians over 40 or better yet over 50 "how she going, eh" and you will get the reality of what one payer socialist/communist systems are about...CONTROL.
If you can control what and how much someone receives you can also control ACCESS.
Many up north suffer for 6-18mths+ just to see a specialist to get the "go ahead" for the level of care that was already desperately needed. Some of which may have irreversible side effects just based on the wait much less the actual suffering endured.
Nothing is free in Canada in relation to healthcare unless you are poor upon which you get similar access to state provided/funded healthcare here in the USA if one takes the time to research it.
There are monthly premiums (albeit very cheap even with zero government assistance in paying depending on income) paid to the province.
If you don't mind 2-4hr+ Emergency Room waits, several months of waiting for specialist checks to approve NEEDED care then feel free to move up their.
About the only thing I can see advantageous is for those under 40 who are still having kids so you don't end up with a $200K bill at the end if your state insurance won't cover it etc.
A one payer system or National Healthcare (the failed Obama care) is already proving to be unsustainable by both the insurance companies and of course us as the customers.
I mean, some people have gone from $200/mth premium and $1000/yr deductible to $700+/mth and $5000+/yr deductible...and this is the supposed "affordable healthcare" we were all promised.
Bring back what we all need CHOICE.
Whenever government takes control to monopolize something it always costs more and you get less options ie:Student Loans ring a bell.
We should desire the CHOICE in what we want to have as coverage, how long and how much we are willing to pay as well as have it for an actually "affordable price" knowing we get the great coverage we paid for.
Many Canadians especially have been forced to "not use" their supposedly free healthcare to seek treatment either in the USA or in some cases Overseas. This is in order to get the immediate medical attention they deserve along with it being at the highest level of care available.
A good portion of us would gladly go to Thailand or other countries where they have excellent highly educated and trained professionals waiting on us 24/7 with some of the industries best care and facilities where you can also then chill and veg with a minivaction during recovery.
Government run healthcare that eliminates OPEN AND FREE MARKETS are always doomed to fail based on the business model and will always cost more and for less quality in all aspects.
It will always also open the Pandora's box of "they own you and therefore they can take anything away" that is government subsidized.
I don't want freebies.
Simply want the option of as much CHOICE as the Free Market will always offer!
You can continue to naively trust the for profit health insurance companies to have YOUR best interest. But you seem to be forgetting what led us to the ACA to start with..
Exactly. It wasn’t working for most people before.
What led us to this was 11million people either unable or unwilling to figure out how to get subsidized healthcare and the ignorant thought that creating a monopoly of which our government is to run would fix the issue by screwing well over 150million people.
Those closest to me that work in the field along with the experiences I have had in Canada clearly made the correct correlation that this illusion was a failure in the making but when you put the words FREE on anything those who need or prefer free will always be on board.
The administrative party involved in creating this catastrophic ACA forgot what they promised all of US or blatantly lied to us because it was their agenda to have yet more government involved in our lives.
We were promised:
Reality:
Many including those like me had to choose between keeping our doctor or paying out of pocket...I literally go to my preferred doctor and pay cash for the visit and anything like labs I have them provide me the paperwork to then take to another provider who will actually accept the insurance for the past 8yrs.
My family (among many others across this great nation) were no longer allowed to keep the insurance they once had and forced to change policies/plans or simply opt to not have any insurance of which is enforceable by way of PENALTY...something so good you penalize people who prefer not to have it?
Prices for 150+MILLION in this country are now so high they are now among those who are can no longer afford the supposedly affordable healthcare promised.
...seriously, we went from 11mill to 150 million suffering. Stupidity at its best.
How was this a better solution?
It seems to me the issue is one of a narrow vision. Everyone arguing about Healthcare is focused solely on who's providing it, rather than focusing on the entire industry as a whole. For it to truly be successful, it's not only the provision of health care, but also needs to reign in the insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry, etc.
You and Pale both realize that the President literally signs annually all things related to Healthcare right?
Prices that are charged by hospitals etc.
Also, considering I have lived in socialist Canada I am keenly aware of what does not work with even 1/10th the population which will (as being proven today) only be worse over here.
I agree that many of the costs are very high and even more so since odrama care came into play.
This is the exact result when you reduce options and free market.
If we allowed a free market to truly occur where not only did we go back to the way it was prior to "supposedly affordable healthcare act" about 150million people are no longer able o afford (fair trade from when it was just 11mil right) but to open border sales we will see far great results.
When any market has open competition we will find prices decrease while the level of service increases.
How and why pharmaceutical companies charge insane amounts here compared to other countries is clearly another issue to contend with but again opening up FREE market internationally with minimal issues would help to alleviate that even more.
I won't ever chastise a company for creating a product/service and charging top dollar especially if the system allows for patents that play a huge role in pricing for the first 2.5 decades of the life of most drugs.
That is just smart business.
What I do chastise is whether I can have options on what types of care I personally wish to pay for and being offered several payers who (based on the competition principle) will allow me to afford said healthcare and select the one that is best suited and priced.
Among half a million other things.
Canada isn't socialist. If we're going to be using this determination of socialism as opposed to the dictionary and theoretical form, then every modern democracy is socialist.
EF, I like having this debate, but please don't start with the breitbart name calling. I can't take you seriously if you do. Costs of Healthcare have actually slowed in terms of the rates they were rising since the passing of ACA, which IMO was remarkable given how it was butchered by both sides.
In theory, yes. In actuality, no. There is no truly free open market. I would like some citations on the 150mm number. Assuming 0-24 ages don't require insurance because they can be on family plans, that brings total population who can technically be owners of insurance plans ~215mm. You're telling me all of a sudden 3/4 can't afford it?
The market is technically semi-regular in this regard already, and it's doing jack shit to bring prices down. You need to regulate the industry in order to bring it back in line.
Does this apply to life saving drugs as well? Say a company creates a genetic-type drug (which many already have to some extent) to cure a form of cancer. Should they be allowed a patent for it, and the ability to charge whatever premiums they please for it? If they are, then this leads to the domino effect of rising HC costs. I think any drug that is considered life saving should be subject to heavy regulation. Give the company and scientists recognition and award for it, but make it widely available and cheap for all to benefit.
You're right, it is. But I don't believe a person's health should be business as usual.
And this will work, when properly regulated. Otherwise you will get giants monopolizing smaller markets until theyre your only option with free markets. It's happened before in other industries, this one will be no different. This is one of those industries that regulation makes sense in, like utilities, public transportation, military, etc.
I will do my best to hold back on the added candid nature on how I refer to particular past presidents and politicians.
They didn't seem to hold their tongue when they called half of Americans deplorable or misleading all of us that if you are conservative and believe in actually enforcing immigration policy we must be "despicable cold hearted people". Figured if it was fair enough for them to use considering they are wanting us to believe they are the elite intellects we should all listen to I wanted to ensure I used similar speech to fit in. ;)
Born Canadian and not in denial about what the country is which doesn't mean I hate it...I simple prefer the TRUE freedom America has to offer and why I have no desire to move back. A Webster's dictionary is not going to influence my factual experience having been born, raised and living through till the age of 30 in that country
I am not sure how you are OK with the absurd pricing for healthcare insurance is but I know plenty of people including friends and family that are living proof of determining "do they pay their mortgage or drop their over inflated insurance policy" ever since the ACA was enacted. There rates have ballooned astronomically and 150million Americans are effected instead of 11million...that is not what I call a successful change.
I'll let you do your own homework on that but I am in direct contact with people who work in the health insurance industry that see the drastic effect ACA has had. Even if I was wrong (I am not) and the number was only double the 11million originally without, does it make it better that we have put even more people in danger of no coverage
Yes, if we are a society that believes in freedom and the ability to live the "American Dream" and one that follows the laws in place then we better be OK with anyone that comes up with a drug that gets a patent and does as they please.
Again, lets remove emotion from this (we don't need the heartbreak hotel speech about equality) and only look at it for what it is. A business.
If I created a way to safely neutralize a violent criminal with a click of a button and I patent it you better believe that it should not just be OK with just being recognized for it and selling it dirt cheap for the greater good. I am not stating I would do that (if you know me and one my professional vocations you would know I would likely make it extremely affordable for all) but as the creator that RIGHT is there's.
This is not about what is about the greater good for humanity because if pharm companies were in the business of "best for humanity" they would share their research and allow open manufacturing without getting the patent to hold exclusivity for 25yrs.
We have policies in place that allows this and forcing a company to comply with a price is both unethical and illogical since they have the right to do as they see fit.
Not saying it is right just that we need to be clear "business is business" otherwise we do start to resort to socialist/communist ideologies which is not AMERICAN.
*Your personal belief is just that...what is fact is that we have policies in place to allow businesses to be profitable in this country. If they follow the law, get the patent and create the amazing new drugs it is up to them what to sell it for.
They did not go into business based on humanitarian reasons*
See you are hung up on political dogma so I won't waste me time trying to open your eyes. I will say tho that I believe in running my business with a conscience and with honor. You obviously do not so there is no point continuing with this.
I suppose if you won 100million dollar lottery you would give 99million of it away to random strangers and causes you hope actually don't keep 98% of what is generated to pay office staff and CEOS.
If so...good for you.
As for me, no I would not do that but that is my decision to make just you would have yours.
Neither are wrong because the income generated came by legal means and no one has a right to tell another person how to spend the money they make.
Just as someone with absolutely ZERO idea on what another persons business is or the industry standards regarding pricing should have or be, has a say in what they charge.
You are simply pretending that your emotions play into what would be considered honorable.
I find zero honor in someone making a false accusation or assumption about another persons character or how the run their business(s) when they don't even know them!
What is honorable is recognizing businesses are what they are and each one is unique to the person(s) who made them.
So long as they comply within the rules governed by them claiming what is ethical or not is merely a matter of opinion and nothing to do with honor/ethics or particular level of conscience.
That is just the hallmark of a feeble mind who believes everyone should get whatever they want without having to work for it in someway.
I am very glad to be in this country for the very reason that in AMERICA the "dream" does not come for free but at great cost for those willing to put in the effort.
It is a country where your efforts can allow you to surpass the norms in everyway and setting limits is for the meek.
I don't do straw man comparisons. This isn't about some made up fantasy of winning 100 million. You have made really long posts so forgive me for cutting through the chatter and laying it out for what it is.
No problem.
You seem clear you wish to avoid my direct comment about your misinformed and inaccurate assumptions about me in a post made prior to the one you decided to answer.
No worries man.
I've not let others opinions much less ones based on completely incorrect assumptions get to me because they are just that, opinions.
You're welcome to read it or not and you're welcome to continue to thinking incorrectly about someone you don't know at all.
In the end, the utopian desired world you wish to live in will not only never be a reality but one I am personally not interested in discussing since it is not a reality to focus on that can be feasible worked towards.
Business are started largely to generate profit.
Business owners got into business because they have a product/service they believe is better than another's while also heavily favoring not being told by anyone how to run their business especially when the other person has no idea of the finer details of said business.
If you desire to run your business like a charity and/or at a particular standard that "makes you feel like you are better than others" so you can then chastise them for not following your lead have it.
Best of luck.
I am not sure why you are making that assumption Pale.
You don't know me or the several small business that own and operate much less the fact that in two of them I actually go above and beyond to offer the services at ridiculously low prices (while offering better service/education than 98% of my competition nationwide) for the very reason of wanting to ensure "price" is not a factor for not getting the much needed services/education.
How does that make me less honorable than you?
My other companies are designed for profit and I hold to what the industry allows me to charge given the fact that my background and education far surpasses most and thus the very, very hefty fees I charge.
This does not make me less of a business person or less ethical or immoral compared to you as I simply recognize my value and worth.
No one who gets into business in order to "make a living" should put themselves or their business in advertent risk in order to do so unless they have an "endless money supply" stemming from other revenue generation.
How do you feel about pro athletes and celebrities who are OK to charge or request the outlandish salaries or contracted rates because they are of their "status"?
If you are OK with that why should it be any different for the rest of us who don't need as much fame but certainly see the value in charging what we or our products/services are worth?
Would you reduce your business fees/products/services to 1/10th the price because I or others believed you should?
Lets keep it real and keep the "sensitive emotions" elsewhere as this was supposed to be a group that checks their egos and their soft hearts elsewhere in favor of facts and the simple business model of supply and demand.
As for dogma...hardly.
I have my reasons for thinking the way I do and they fall in line with what is ethical and society accepted regarding business practices.
Why have rules and regulations and then get all heart broken when someone follows them who is successful.
I do not believe in equality outside of the fact that we ALL have equal opportunity to be successful or to not be.
Everyone makes their OWN choice on what they feel they are worth and what they will accept as payment for services rendered.
Just because someone may make 2x,10x or 100x what most people do does not make them any less ethical or honorable.
There is NO honor in selling yourself short.
Let's pretend that there is a clean slate. year one, generation one.
The government has a catastrophic healthcare plan you can buy for $1000 annually. You are able to establish a pre tax health savings account. The account can earn interest and be passed on when you die. Employers are also able contribute to the account. Parents can write off income donated to their children's health accounts starting at birth.
As a 20 year old I'm going to opt out of the catastrophic care. My health savings account is near empty so I buy a lower deductible policy, costs a bit more but still not too bad because the FDA has made meds a lot cheaper by cutting red tape, and insurance costs are down because hospital costs are down (less exposure to lawsuits), I'm young, fit, and a non smoker. And, I have joined a co-op with 1 million members which is a lot more than the company i work for with only 75,000 employees nationwide)* I put $2000 into my health savings account each year, my employer matches 25 cents on the dollar.
At 40 I've maintained my health because it costs me too much not to. I have only had use my account for minor things, after 20 years I have about $180,000 in my health account. I opt to get insurance with a much higher deductible bringing my month to month rate way down. I'm getting older so I opt in on the catastrophic coverage which keeps my cost for coverage about the same.
at 75 years of age I have over a million in my health account, I'm still in good health because it costs me too much not to be. My health insurance is very inexpensive with a deductible so high I'm not likely to ever use it. I rely mostly on my health account backed by my catastrophic health insurance.
I've willed my health savings to my 2 kids...
I'm a 20 year old, My mom and dad passed, dieing in a plane crash when I was 16. I have 1 million in my health savings account. My health savings account will more than double in my lifetime without any contributions from me but I will put money in to get the max any employer is willing to match, why give away free money right? I'm buying health insurance with a very high deductible which will allow me to get the catastrophic insurance as well.
The government is talking about allowing me to use anything over 2 million in my account as part of my retirement income... I sure hope they pass that bill by the time I'm 80 which is the age I can retire and collect social security as well.
StevebIt's going to pass eventually but through executive order. It won't be single payer, it will be free market just like car insurance.
Stevebhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare/trump-says-hes-likely-...
Your right and prices will increase. Thats the way it was before Obama Care. It's a fckn racket.
What was a scam is not being able to buy across state lines.
A truly open, open market will drive costs down. As would protecting doctors from frivolous lawsuits, pretax healthcare savings accounts, and wellness incentives to mention just a few things better than single payer.
Well we also have a whole (for profit) health insurance industry that adds at least 1/3rd if not more to the cost of healthcare in this country. We do not need it nor should we protect them. At this point we have nothing more to lose by trying single payer, it cannot get any more expensive than it is going to as it stands.
As far as the crossing state lines thing, how do you suppose that is going to make a difference? There isn't much difference between states as far as costs go bro. What percentage reduction do you suppose it would create? 5%? So instead of a 25-30% increase this year maybe it will only be 20-25%?
lobbyists created territories which keep the competition out which for the most part creates little monopolies. Buying nationally would make the market much more competitive.
Banks don't want to wait 30 years to see their money for a mortgage so they bundle loans together and sell them off to investors. Bundles with good loans have lower risk and sell for more than high risk bundles. High risk bundles are cheaper but if all goes well offer higher returns.
Likewise insurance companies bundle patients togeather and "sell" the providers the bundle, Doctor/hospitals agree to see patients at a deeply discounted rate if the pool of patients are young and healthy. (less discounted rates for higher risk pools)
(Figures I'm using are for illustrating the process, not meant to be factual)
Let's say the average annual cost for health care is only $4000 per individual. multiply that by 1000 people and the cost is 4 million dollars. let's say the insurance company wants to keep 25% for brokering and maintaining the accounts. They offer a hospital 3 million dollars to agree to treat the bundle of 1000 patients whether they see them or not.
Let's say that the pool of 1000 patients is comprised of...
50% under 30 and healthy,
45% over 30 but under 50 with minor maintenance health issues,
5% elderly with likely issues (some near end of life and may not be in the pool for much longer)..
The doctors/hospitals know that they might only need to treat
05% of the under 30;
40% of the over 30 under 50
95% of the over 50.
The hospital might only end up treating 250 patients out of the 1000. The large percent of young and healthy greatly offset the cost of treating the small percent of elderly. That's roughly $12,000 per patient that is actually seen; most of whom will only get an annual physical and a renewal on prescriptions.
Now take a state like Arizona, population 7 million, 25% over 50 years old.
in comparison, New York City alone has 8.5 million
You can imagine the "patient pools" in Arizona would not be as low risk as more populous parts of the country. And, in many parts of the state, there is only one provider option.
What if Arizona was allowed to buy across state lines? If people were able to join nation wide "Costco like" co-ops allowing them to be included in much larger, lower risk pools? And, what if this was just one small piece of a integrated system.
Better and faster FDA process to get drugs to market without years of costly red tape.
pre tax Health Savings plans that can be inherited.
better protection for doctors against frivolous lawsuits.
wellness incentives, (lower rates for those who maintain healthy weight, BP, non smoking, etc)
Clear and well defined costs known upfront. (not just what the patient pays)
Modify medicaid/medicare to include catastrophic healthcare for all ages. (sort of like how all bank accounts are federally insured up to $250,000. If insurance companies knew that at most they might have to pay out is one or two million and that the feds covered everything above that. premiums would drop dramatically and be more like home insurance) "Single payer" catastrophic coverage would be far cheaper than single payer "everyday care".
(it's important to note, that even now you are unlikely to be denied a life saving surgery or drugs because you can not pay. Pharma, doctors, and hospitals have charitable programs in place. The drug company that makes the interferon I was prescribed to treat hep C issued a $50,000 coupon to cover the cost that exceeded my coverage. A co worker who's baby was going to be born with the stomach not connected to the intestinal tract was granted over 1 million dollars to have surgery performed on the fetus in the womb.)
Single payer will:
Politicians are cowards, and the population is pampered. No one will want to raise taxes, instead, money will be borrowed and services cut. Where doctors will want to perform needed preventative exams like colonoscopies every 4 years, the cost saving government will mandate 8 years. Eventually, all will come crashing down.
You put up a well reasoned response although I do not believe it will appreciably change the prices on the ground.
As for single payer I concur there will certainly be growing pains but we are fortunate that the rest of the industrialized world already has went that way so we could arguably make the best plan of them all if the politicians had courage. As far as the rich getting better care, they already do except it isn’t just the rich. Those with good insurance are getting far better care
I just think that the private sector does a better job keeping costs down, and quality of service higher; and are invested in their own success.
There are hundreds of examples of government mismanagement from bloated contracts, misappropriation, to spending 1 million dollars of taxpayer money to fly in government jets.
Bureaucrats think differently and are not invested in "the company" (i.e., the country). even at the highest levels they become blind to real world economics. Department coffers are always full and there is no incentive to cut waste.
In the military for example, it is a use it or lose it budget process. It is very hard to get funds to do something, and what is requested is usually halved. So when asking for money to paint a barracks, when $1000 is needed, $2000 is requested. $800 might be used.
if you were given $100,000 operating budget and you managed to cut expenses, and spend only $75,000, the following year you'll only be given $75,000 which does not help if you have planned on replacing $50,000 worth of old A/C units that next year using your existing budget and the saved $25,000 To avoid that, money is spent on frivolous things to maintain or attempt to increase the annual budget.
The example I gave is for one department on one base, in one branch of the service. It operates as it's own company. The air force acts like it's own company, the military acts like its own company, as do the hundreds of thousand departments in the government. There is no profit/loss balance sheet any of them work from. There is no incentive to make a profit (in this case operating under budget).
The government, in short, is not suited to run social services.
I agree government doesn't have the best reputation but where we are now with health insurance makes the government look favorable. The private sector if allowed to run amuck always runs amuck. One thing we can both agree on is things are all fucked up and something has to change. But it needs to change in a way that doesn't fuck the consumer.
I think we can all agree something needs to happen.
What would you know, I learned last night that you are apparently a racist fictional character based on black face minstrel shows... or was that just the cat.? ;-)
No matter, I'll just have to toss you into the same bin as those commie Teletubbies
That's a new one on me. I am a retired coal miner. We all look the same underground...Ofcourse I've been called worse. Lol
Coal miner? Hah, so they were right, you do wear blackface!
Stevebhttps://www.libertyhealthshare.org/
Was that meant to be funny? I don't get it.
StevebYes
Stevebhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adrdmmh7bMo
The guy who wrote it tells you it's a scam, he had to trick people into buying it, and people who voted for it are stupid.