Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Costs less - Nope
Better access - ok, but with worse treatment and rationing.
Linked to employment - not according to Obamacare.
You said that things wouldn't change, CBO says you are wrong, costs are going up, and history of other countries shows that wait times are up, and MA shows that ER usage is up. The only so called benefit is everyone is insured, no assurance of quality improvements, no assurance that even with access that they can get an appointment or a doctor, no assurance at all that costs to the taxpayers will go down.
In my working career, I operated on the principle that if you are 80% sure that a decision is the right one then make that decision. There isn't a person out there other than maybe the leftwing wacko who believes with a 80% certainty that things will be better under Obamacare.
Not in terms of what we were talking about. You jump around, and seem to have trouble staying on topic.
Seems you have a problem with reality and answering direct questions. Tell me why exactly we need Obamacare and how adding 14-30 million new insurance covered people is going to lower costs, improve access, and quality?
I don't think we stop here. It really only addresses half the equation, as I've said. It helps improve access. I call on us to keep working to improve it. I argue UHC would improve it, tackling the cost as it is less expensive. How try not to ounce around.
None of that is the responsibility of the federal govt. Protection from invasion is.
...actually the general welfare clause is pretty board. This notion that the only function of the US government is only to provide for the common defence is amusing.
How will increasing access lower costs and improve quality? Adding 14-30 million new participants has to be a logistics problem since all those uninsured are all over the country and we currently have a doctor shortage. How do we solve the other half of the problem now that you have access for everyone?
I don't think we stop here. It really only addresses half the equation, as I've said. It helps improve access. I call on us to keep working to improve it. I argue UHC would improve it, tackling the cost as it is less expensive. How try not to ounce around.
...actually the general welfare clause is pretty board. This notion that the only function of the US government is only to provide for the common defence is amusing.
You are avoiding the 800lb gorilla that conservative brought up....purposely I think.
Increasing access to a waiting line, like Canada does, doesn't seem like much progress to me and certainly doesn't seem worth the enormous cost that ObamaCare will add.
I haven't ignored anything. I think he's just pretending not to have gotten the answer. If you can't see the answer, ask and I'll answer you as well.
I haven't ignored anything. I think he's just pretending not to have gotten the answer. If you can't see the answer, ask and I'll answer you as well.
LOL, yes, let's compare apples and oranges which you are good at doing. Any idea what criteria is being used to generate those stats? How does UHC help you and your family? I thought you were kidding but apparently not. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and total ignorance of reality? You would give the U.S. Politicians that created a 17 trillion dollar debt control o 1/6 of the U.S. economy? They have to love having people like you.
You have never answered the question so here it is again
Tell me why exactly we need Obamacare and how adding 14-30 million new insurance covered people is going to lower costs, improve access, and quality?
Pot calling the polar bear black.
Apparently your solution to long wait times is fewer patients.
Yes, I read the article. We spend more, period. You claimed every other nation sees higher costs. Patently false. Germany has the shortest overall wait times, by the way, not the US. Another false claim for you.Did you even read the article? Now answer the question
Tell me why exactly we need Obamacare and how adding 14-30 million new insurance covered people is going to lower costs, improve access, and quality?
Yes, I read the article. We spend more, period. You claimed every other nation sees higher costs. Patently false. Germany has the shortest overall wait times, by the way, not the US. Another false claim for you.
In theory, fewer ER visits can lower costs. You see, right now millions of uninsured people wait until a problem becomes catastrophic and then go to the ER where the costs are highest. Preventative measures would have been cheaper. Now, Obamacare leaves the fundamentally flawed insurance model we have intact, so I'm skeptical as to whether we'll actually see lower costs. Obamacare addresses coverage a lot more than it addresses cost.
Improved access? 14-30 million people are going to have improved access. I guess you're not counting them?
Quality? It's not like our medical schools suddenly become terrible or our technology suddenly devolves.
Here's the wonderful thing about the free market: it can respond to changes in demand. Maybe you should start up a new medical equipment company, good time for it, right?
Thanks for parroting what you heard on Fox. Now try supporting both of these statements, if you can. You shouldn't make such statements if you can not support them.
As usual you ignore reality, MA costs are up because of ER usage. More people in the system that is already plagued by a doctor shortage is going to put more pressure on the ER's because of fewer doctors and more patients. The Free Market is driven by incentive and when you reduce incentive you reduce supply. Very simple economics except to people who don't understand supply and demand.
Here is a pretty good analysis of what drives costs in this country. Ignoring the effect of govt. regulations is what big govt. liberals always do.
http://www.awhp-online.com/issues/AWHP_RisingHealthCareCosts_7-26-04.pdf
I am waiting for an explanation as to why you would reward a massive central govt. that has created a 17 trillion dollar debt by giving them more control of the economy?
Yes, keep yammering about cost when the US is the most expensive by far. What's that about ignoring reality? :lamo
The question is why the U.S. has higher costs and I gave you the reasons. You choose to ignore them to promote another massive entitlement program that doesn't address costs or quality. The question is why? You cannot address costs of healthcare until you address the reasons for those higher costs and to compare this country to any other in the world is comparing apples to oranges.
You've handwaved most of the costs and dumped everything onto "government regulation." But in other nations, the government has far more control and costs are far lower. Can you explain that other than just dismissing it as "apples to oranges?"
I'm not promoting Obamacare. I'm promoting single-payer.
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?