Yawn.
Remember The 47 Percent Who Pay No Income Taxes? They Are Not Who You Think.
Statistically the speaking, Trumpers are less likely to pay their taxes while receiving government hand-outs. Way to sabotage your own point. Wheeee!
And also:
Only 11 percent of those age 25-55 do not pay federal income tax
You are talking about total costs. MFA would bankrupt the government because even though the overall costs would be less, the government would basically be paying 100% of the costs while right now individuals pay a good share of the cost. And, with the government in control, the horrors of a single payer system would soon take root.
Yawn.
Remember The 47 Percent Who Pay No Income Taxes? They Are Not Who You Think.
Statistically the speaking, Trumpers are less likely to pay their taxes while receiving government hand-outs. Way to sabotage your own point. Wheeee!
And also:
This group does more than not pay a fed income tax. They receive someones else's redistributed wealth in the EITC(Billions)
Derp. Few over 75 pay taxes, and they are overwhelmingly Trump supporters. Not exactly the unemployed rural rubes you pretend.
Question of the Day: Why are leftwingers so dishonest in everything they do and say?
the other countries using similar systems aren't working out as Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders is claiming. Gaps in coverage and long waiting lines exist. The promise of the democrat Leftist is that in America we will do it better and fix all the mistakes and problems that occur elsewhere. Yeah, government runs things so well.
No, the Rest of the World Doesn't Use "Single Payer" - Foundation for Economic Education
I've had the opportunity to put this question to some 100 persons from Canada, France, Finland, Norway, Holland, Sweden, etc
"Would you trade your country's health care system for that of America's? "
Thus far, 99 of those said "no". not just "no", but "HELL NO".
The Naval Hospital, a government run institution, is par none. If there is proof that government can run a hospital, and do it well, there it is.
See, it's not gov versus private, it's good admin versus bad admin.
Moreover, M4A is NOT a "gov run hospital". It's a consortium of private clinics who opt in for medicare paying the bill.
See, these clinics still compete in a market place for business. Viola, the best of both worlds, the perfect balance of socialism/capitalism.
I ask: Where does the pendulum rest?
Answer: It rests only upon arrival at dead center.
Moreover, using other countries as examples is not that good, considering that most countries are far more stingier with their health care dollars than America is, on the whole.
In universal health care, all have access to health care but not all have access to quality health care or health care when they want or need it.
That's how universal health care is cheaper. People are regularly denied health care.
nm...that's kind of like how our **** works, but we pay more. Many folk can't afford the higher quality care and just die after some time. Medical expenses are the number one cause of bankruptcy in america. That seems a bit messed up.
I also get a little nervous when "projected costs" are used for argument. Can you name the last government run program that didn't overrun its "projected costs" by gazillions?
Nonsense. Projections and trends aren't reality.
If you're saying universal healthcare is the same as traditional American healthcare because people are denied healthcare in both cases, I'd agree with you. The big difference being the cost. Universal healthcare is far more expensive to the average individual.That's kind of like how our **** works, but we pay more. Many folk can't afford the higher quality care and just die after some time. Medical expenses are the number one cause of bankruptcy in America. That seems a bit messed up.
It has? In what universe?Yes, reality has turned out to be much better than the projections used to sell the ACA ten years ago. And that's because health care cost growth fell to historic lows after the ACA passed, which no one at the time was predicting.
LOL, there you go with "projections and trends" again.Greenbeard said:As a result, spending right now is half a trillion dollars below where they told us it would be at this point. Cumulative health savings relative to baseline over the 2010-19 period has been about $2.7 trillion. The cost of the ACA itself has been closer to about half of what it was promised to be, whereas the Medicare savings have been closer to double (~$500 billion promised vs ~$900 billion achieved). Health spending as a percentage of GDP right now is 3.2 percentage points below what they told us it would be by this year.
LOL, maybe in the la-la land of spreadsheets and projections, but the fact is consumers are paying much higher premiums and outrageous deductibles while the government subsidizes insurance companies (many of which have dropped out of the market).Greenbeard said:So what policy outperformed its projected costs? The ACA. By an insane amount. And the entire health sector, not to mention every man, women, and child in the country, is better off for it.
It has? In what universe?
LOL, there you go with "projections and trends" again.
LOL, maybe in the la-la land of spreadsheets and projections
LOL, again with the "projections and trends" mantra. Those aren't real numbers or data, they're suppositions and guesses.This one. Health care spending growth, health care price inflation, ESI premiums have all flirted with historic lows in the ACA era. That's why the nation is spending far less on health care right now than anyone thought we would be.
LOL "projected costs" mean squat. Actual costs DO.Greenbeard said:That's literally how you started this exchange. "Can you name the last government run program that didn't overrun its 'projected costs' by gazillions?" The answer is the ACA. By a lot. It came in under its projected costs by hundreds of billions of dollars. And that's just the taxpayer share of national health costs. National health care costs themselves came in trillions under projected costs over the past decade.
Got nothing to do with Trump, I raised these issues since he was a Democrat. What I feel is continually writing bigger and bigger checks for premiums and dealing with a deductible that I rarely hit so and as a result rarely get much help from ACA. I also feel the suck of taxes taken out of my income to subsidize those that can't afford to buy HCI themselves.Greenbeard said:Yes, numbers, the things we're talking about. I'm sure you feel like health cost savings in the ACA era didn't vastly exceed expectations, but the numbers are unequivocal that they did. Numbers do in fact trump rightwing feelings.
LOL, again with the "projections and trends" mantra. Those aren't real numbers or data, they're suppositions and guesses.
LOL "projected costs" mean squat. Actual costs DO.
I've heard the mantras and slogans over and over. Not convinced. And as the Gallop poll shows neither are many others.I'm guessing you asked "Can you name the last government run program that didn't overrun its 'projected costs' by gazillions?" because you assumed there wasn't an obvious and ready answer that would infuriate the right. The answer, of course, being the ACA, whose savings vastly exceeded promises and humiliated the rightwing doomsayers.
Actual cost growth in health care in the ACA era has been among the lowest ever recorded, despite the highest coverage levels in history.
The more people that is covered... the lower the cost will go.
When American had 10's and 100's of thousands with "Union Sponsored Health Care"... the cost was lower, because of the high volume of people who were covered through these group program policies.
When Union Busting went into overdrive, the cost of Medical Insurance began to "skyrocket"... It's basic math!!! ( aside from the basic math, when the number of insured people declined... the Insurance and Medical Community saw an opportunity to "Price Gouge" !!!!
No matter how it unfolds, the future will "break up these networks" and people will be free to choose their own provider of choice... not from some list such as that which the networks currently provide.
Networks are a Collusive Agreement Based System between "Medical Networks" and "Insurance Carriers".. That is something were two entities are working against the individual. Networks make it harder to get the test people need in a timely manner, and when they do, these doctors Play Feeder System Players" to their partners within the Network.
It never made sense that a person would pay more if they went outside the network, their insurance would not cover the cost, and would take too much time to authorize a person to go outside the network. These same systems, rush people "out of hospitals"... try every kind of test to avoid doing the costly test that would produce better information.
I would hope to see Federal Funding Programs for Medical Professions, to set up centers across this country, with multiple MRI Machine and Other Speciality Machines, to drive down the "Monopoly that Hospitals and their Networks have on MRI"... it's not new technology... its been around a while.. yet they still charge a rate as if its a rare testing unit. We should have 100's of Thousands of these machine across the nation... that is in proximity to where every citizen can access it within a reasonable distance. There would not be a backlog and long waiting times. They can do a Scans.. that scan multiple body systems all during the same process, rather than a individual scan for each and every little thing. It's does not make sense.. to limit this powerful machine to such energy wasting abuse, just for the sake of pursuing "higher profits" by requiring "a different scan for each things". For one, it expose the individual to too much magnetic resonance. ((MRIs use a strong magnetic field and radio waves)) - Ultra Sounds should never have the high cost they have...
It's time the public call out the Medical Community and Insurance Systems on these "Cost Gouging Games".
The more informed people invest to become, the more they can know how to stand up to these "Greed Machine Systems" that have been created in the Medical Community and the Insurance Systems.
"most countries are far more stingier with their health care dollars than America is, on the whole"
That's because to get the same or better health outcomes at nearly half the cost, those countries not only pay much less for admin and drugs, they also pay less in doctors and mgr salaries. BTW, the claim that the UHC countries wait-time is much longer than in the US is a farce and has never been proven.
You're preachin' to the choir, bro, so blow some of that bluesmoke at a repub on this forum.
OL
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?