- Joined
- Nov 7, 2012
- Messages
- 7,039
- Reaction score
- 3,268
- Location
- Denio Junction
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
I'm for repeal and replace, as long as we replace it with single payer.
70% of the people in this nation are satisfied with their health care. Single Payer changes that, and since congress and the elites have already shown how easy it would be for them to exempt themselves from such a plan its a mistake. It is also unnecessary. Please read my link and you'll see why.
Before obama care we had problems to resolve. Uninsured. Extremely high national costs. Denial of insurance to those with pre existing conditions. The link, "Our Cure" solves them - all and without the need for a single payer system for the whole country.
70% of the people in this nation are satisfied with their health care. Single Payer changes that, and since congress and the elites have already shown how easy it would be for them to exempt themselves from such a plan its a mistake. It is also unnecessary. Please read my link and you'll see why.
Before obama care we had problems to resolve. Uninsured. Extremely high national costs. Denial of insurance to those with pre existing conditions. The link, "Our Cure" solves them - all and without the need for a single payer system for the whole country.
No, they don't.To do so though they must come up with a reasoned alternative
What we had was fine.Before obama care we had problems to resolve
For the most part that was by choice of the consumer.Uninsured.
Few things could be done here that would drastically reduce the costs.Extremely high national costs.
Which is an appropriate action and based on a logically sound rationale.Denial of insurance to those with pre existing conditions.
2 simple pages plus a 3rd Q&A, a real solution, real jobs, and none of this hyperbole from DC.
Because every complicated problem has a simple solution :roll:
I like the general idea behind what they're saying here (W
ho is "they," by the way?). Even that sounds beyond too "Liberal" for the TPers.
I want to clarify that I'm not demonizing TPers, but when you talk about the Federal Government spending $650 million to put a healthcare system in place, that pretty much is against what they stand for.
Did you read it or just summarily dismiss because it was 2,988 pages short of minutia?
They will simply organize within a territory all of the city, county, and state health care facilities (excluding VA) into a network of care services for the people in the territory.
The new facilities must include a new or expanded medical school and a public medical center (clinic) that isn’t quite a hospital but is definitely an urgent care center.
I'm not a TPer. Never was or will be. I'm not a libertarian as another respondent here was. I want people to have insurance if they want it, and I want to see us have a public health care system for those who need it, but I also want the private system to go on doing what it does. This seems like an ideal solution.
I read it, and it's complete fiction
It also calls for a complete govt takeover of the health care industry
It sets up "health care networks" but doesn't require that any network include a hospital. What kind of health care can they deliver if they don't have one single hospital?
The proposal does nothing to address problems like increase in costs associated with new technology, the overuse of diagnostic tests, lack of preventative care, etc
I'm not saying you're a TPer, I just don't think they'd like this much more than they like Obamacare.
Actually if you read it - you would notice the networks would incorporate all public facilities except VA's. Maybe you live in some weird place that doesn't have city, county or state hospitals but we got all kinds of them around here. Always underfunded, always unable to care for people, and always a burden on society - time to put them to use for the public good.
Its not a take over of the health care system at all, its a separation that enables the 70% who enjoy a private system to continue doing so; a 70% that already pays for those without insurance by sharing their emergency rooms with them and getting stuck with the bill.
The proposal can't impact technology costs - nothing can - but it can impact labor costs. It does too. I suspect a lot of people in the industry like labor shortages and don't mind them so they can always earn more, but its time the tax payer fought back and put more people into the labor field to reduce our costs.
There is nothing in the proposal that impacts labor costs, or any costs at all, aside from raising costs for people with insurance by taxing their plans, and cutting the benefits for those on Medicare, etc.
I'm for repeal and replace, as long as we replace it with single payer.
I hope the Republicans will stand up to obama and repeal his 2700 pages of regulation and taxation. To do so though they must come up with a reasoned alternative and they've been chastised properly for not having one. I'll give them one:
OUR CURE
2 simple pages plus a 3rd Q&A, a real solution, real jobs, and none of this hyperbole from DC.
While I do not oppose a single payer system, the best in-between would be to fold all government healthcare into a single system and also allow the private policies. It is quite ridiculous to have multiple federal systems even with Obamacare. Consolidating medicare, medicaid, VA, etc into a single system would make it harder for providers to cherrypick certain types of patients over others and create uniformity in benefits. This isn't about providing healthcare to the poor--it is all about maximizing healthcare profits. It is why medical providers fought Hillarycare but not Obamacare--well at least until it was too late and they realized that corporate medicine was about to screw small private practice providers.
Really?
So getting the uninsured out of private health care facilities that won't be paid for them doesn't save anyone a dime - really? Are you that out of touch with reality? It is one of the biggest burdens on the private system.
And adding 75000 working professionals a year to the industry won't impact labor costs any? Again have you lost touch with reality or just want to be against everything and for obamacare so badly?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Private facilities are paid for the services they render, even if the patient is uninsured.
The proposal does not require adding 75000 working professionals a year to the industry. You made that up
Wow not sure what you are reading, but I'm going to call out any load you make up that ignores the reality of it.
Private facilities are now required to care for anyone that walks in. If that person does not pay they divide the bill up among the many that do through insurance. Hence our insurance rates are the highest in the world. I'm sorry if you don't understand, but this is for people that do.
That proposal calls for expanding 300 universities or colleges and gives them the resources to educate more people in the field of health care - it doesn't create 75,000 more jobs its creates 75,000 more trained people to take jobs every year. That puts pressure on the job market, pressure that does not exist right now, and that means there will be wage pressures favorable to rate payers (can you say cost savings) instead of nurses and health care professionals. Of course if you are one of those I can see your opposition to the plan is self interest and this is for the interest of society - not you.
This simply creates a two tiered system, one that accepts the gov't defined "fair" reimbursement rate for care provided and another that caters to cash or private insurance customers at a higher rate of return.
As opposed to a system where nobody but the bottom feeders and corporations will treat medicare patients?
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?