So you said most, not all.
Are there some people who get subsidies who you don't consider freeloaders? Who, and why?
We pay one way or the other, so what difference does it make??
Actually, our share is much less than $4,000., just over $1,000. Our share should be zero for someone making that much money.
You mean the uninsured can get care now ??? I thought it was impossible for the uninsured to get healthcare and thousands died because of it????
I guess the Dems were lying all that time.
We likely pay more under the old system, as there is no oversight to follow costs and show how much is actually appropriate mark up. Paying less matters.
Helping is not the same as a free ride, and while I'm sure many agree with your opinion of 0, I just want us clear on what we're actually doing. No free ride, just some help.
I do like good sarcasm, but people actually get late care, and not the type of preventive care that would be more cost effective and perhaps save lives. Right now we encourage treatment over health, and too many wait until they are real sick or injured, we treat them and pay for their care. Very ad hoc and not too cost effective or particularly beneficial for those receiving care.
All of the above sounds more like opinion than facts.
All argument has a certain amount of opinion, but there is support for everything I've said. Who monitors how much hospitals charge for say a bandaid? The hospital here reports that one bandaid costs $16.04. When I asked them why, they said to make up for those who don't pay. it's just one example, but I see no one looking to see if it accurately reflects the cost, or if the hospital is making more money then they need to cover the costs. Can you show me anyone who monitors this?
And can you really argue that this has effected those who pay? Hasn't effected premiums? That you haven't been paying all along in one way or another? And that this ad hoc way has to be more cost effective?
Price controls have never and will never work.
Who said anything about price controls?
Boo Radley said:it's just one example, but I see no one looking to see if it accurately reflects the cost, or if the hospital is making more money then they need to cover the costs. Can you show me anyone who monitors this?
Do you ever read posts,
I read it, and I didn't see anyone advocating price controls. Either I missed it, or you're confused.
You missed it and you're confused.
Could you kindly point to the message number where someone advocates price controls?
Why monitor charges to determine if they accurately reflect the hospital's costs or attempt to determine if the hospital is making more money than they should if price control is not the goal ?????
I think you misunderstand. No reasonable person would consider $16.04 the proper charge for a bandaid when you can buy an entire box foe less than $2.00. So, if the hospital claims they are doing so to make up for the cost of treating those who can't pay, meaning they are passing the cost on to you, and the rest of us, with no mechanism to measure and monitor this, how can we know they are telling the truth? And how do you or the rest of us know which would cost more, the present ad hoc method, or paying through taxes? We pay either way, but certainly one has to be more cost effective than the other?
Why do you insist on obfuscation in every post you make ???
Read post 182 very slowly and carefully.
Why monitor costs and charges if control is not the intent ?????????????
So... you think we should monitor the hospitals' cost of doing business, but do nothing about problems ???
So... you think we should monitor the hospitals' cost of doing business, but do nothing about problems ???
Why does one method have to be more cost effective than the other ??
Will the cost of band aids go down under health care reform ???
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?