Frustration mounts over ObamaCare co-op failures

[Renae]

You do pay for it in taxation, but the taxes you pay are less than the premiums you pay now, that's the whole "lowering costs" part. I don't think it's "lower economic freedom" any more than any particular insurance "restricts" economic freedom. It's just another form of insurance. Does the insurance offered through your job "lower your economic freedom"?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse

 

[Ikari]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse

US: Lowest life expectancy, highest infant mortality, highest preventable deaths, amongst the lowest # of physicians, middle of road with the nurses, highest (by far) spend on healthcare, highest healtcare cost as percentage of GDP, highest % if government revenue spent on health, lowest % oh health costs paid by government.

But yeah, those single payer systems and mixed systems like the other modern countries have...those suck. I sure do enjoy paying more money, having less access to healthcare, and dying earlier than those single payer suckers!



I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.

 

[jaeger19]

We have some nice standards, but ultimately pay the most for while having the least access to our healthcare system.

I'm not sure why a national healthcare program would automatically be a "decrease in coverage" for people. Most places that have some form or add-mixture of national healthcare tend to have, overall, better coverage.

No.. most places that have national healthcare have overall much worse coverage. About tantamount to less coverage than our Medicaid. Which is considered in this country to be about the worst insurance there is.

We have the least access to our healthcare only because of the 10% of americans that don;t have insurance. for the 90% of americans that have insurance? they have BETTER access to healthcare. That's why we score higher on timeliness of care despite having the uninsured..

 

[jaeger19]

View attachment 67205068

US: Lowest life expectancy, highest infant mortality, highest preventable deaths, amongst the lowest # of physicians, middle of road with the nurses, highest (by far) spend on healthcare, highest healtcare cost as percentage of GDP, highest % if government revenue spent on health, lowest % oh health costs paid by government.

But yeah, those single payer systems and mixed systems like the other modern countries have...those suck. I sure do enjoy paying more money, having less access to healthcare, and dying earlier than those single payer suckers!

View attachment 67205072

I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.

Actually.. its not really sad because the data.. though emotion are largely BS . Well not BS per se but they don;t say what you think it says.

notice Japan.. and Norway. Japan has about 1/2 the costs.. yet lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy.

Both with a universal national healthcare system.

Can you explain the difference?

Hint.. its not the difference in having a national healthcare system. since they both have one.. yet serious differences in cost.

Its because other factors like cultural demographics etc.. make the difference.

Yet people think the difference in America is solely because of our different healthcare system.. when obviously there are other probably more important factors.

 

[Ikari]

Actually.. its not really sad because the data.. though emotion are largely BS . Well not BS per se but they don;t say what you think it says.

notice Japan.. and Norway. Japan has about 1/2 the costs.. yet lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy.

Both with a universal national healthcare system.

Can you explain the difference?

Hint.. its not the difference in having a national healthcare system. since they both have one.. yet serious differences in cost.

Its because other factors like cultural demographics etc.. make the difference.

Yet people think the difference in America is solely because of our different healthcare system.. when obviously there are other probably more important factors.

I can explain that we're an outlier from the rest of the advanced nations. In all metrics of healthcare, we are almost universally the worst. Most paid, least access, lowest life expediency, highest infant mortality rate, etc.

Measured values, we have amongst the worst healthcare ratings of the modern world. Look at the US...far outside the grouping.

 

[Excon]

A private organization cannot aggregate systems on the scale that government can, and when you approach the monetary values involved in the healthcare system, private organizations have a hard time sourcing that flow and maintaining it.

1. Bs!
2. Irrelevant.

It’s one of the reasons we see the failures with Obamacare we see now.

No it isn't.

It’s so nice to say “go start a non-profit insurance agency”, but a localized, private organization like that will not have the effect that government can have. Government has the stability and financial backing to be able to aggregate over the entire population and because of that, produces these effects. To produce this lower of costs and increased access to healthcare, the government is the necessary tool.

Again, bs!
2. It is not necessary either.

You’re right, it’s not tenable.

It is not tenable because you and those like you do not want to incur the costs associated with it.
You want a system that takes care of those who wont or can't not take care of it their selves bu those of you who are like minded wont do it because you know the cost will over burden you, so to achieve your desires you selfishly want everybody else all to pay for it so your burden for what you want isn't to high.

The scales are too large for a private, small scale, organization to have any affect on the aggregated system. Government has the power to aggregate over the healthcare pool, not private industry. Too many people, too much money for private corps to handle well.

Wrong, and still not necessary.

It’s not irrelevant, you cannot argue against it so you’re trying to dismiss.

Wrong.
You argued that Peter and Paul make out well. They do not. Peter is paying for that which he should not have to.
Pointing out that taking from one to give to another, is a complete argument, one which you have failed to refute, and as such, it does dismiss your argument.

Lots of things are against choice, you have no choice with car insurance as an example.

You still do not understand that car insurance is a failed example here. They are not comparable and you are again misstating the requirement for its purchase.
You are required to have liability to drive on publicly owned roads to cover damage you cause to others.
Which is nothing like providing for your own needs.

You have no choice in taxes, for example.

Taxes are placed so that we can have a functioning government to govern. Not to allow overreach such as our current social programs.

Everyone is going to have healthcare, this way just makes it cheaper and easier to obtain. Everyone just pays into the system, much like they do for insurance, but with much larger leverage on the system since the aggregated pool is much larger.

Not a valid reason. Matter of fact, you have yet to cite a valid reason for implementing such a program.
Again;

"... taking care of a contagion which would devastate the nation is an example of the general welfare that is being spoken about."​

View attachment 67205068

 

[DA60]

Dump the bloated whale that is Obamacare and replace it with government medical coverage of all those who cannot and do not have insurance....which is what they should have done into first place.

If they had just covered those 30+ million Americans that needed it...everything would have been okay.

But no...Obama wanted a legacy bill (and the Dems want Canadian-style healthcare)...and this is it.

 

[jaeger19]

I can explain that we're an outlier from the rest of the advanced nations. In all metrics of healthcare, we are almost universally the worst. Most paid, least access, lowest life expediency, highest infant mortality rate, etc.

Measured values, we have amongst the worst healthcare ratings of the modern world. Look at the US...far outside the grouping.

Actually no.. in all metrics of healthcare we general score in the top 10 and often in the top 5 in developed nations. Things like effectiveness of care, timeliness of care.. correctness of care.. so on and so forth. What scores us low is whats termed.. "equality of care or equitable care" and "efficiency of care" and that's because we have 10% of americans that don;t have health insurance and have a harder time accessing care.

We also fall I think outside the top 10 in preventative care. (health lives) which is partly due to the uninsured but also a lifestyle issue and the way the insurance companies handle preventative medicine. ( and that includes the government).

So.. well.. you are wrong.