- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
If Obama really wanted to see how nationalizing health care was likely to turn out, all he had to do was look across the Canadian border. Canadian governments gained control of the health-care business so they could give voters subsidized health-care benefits, but that led everybody to want more, which bid up health-care prices, which then led officials to try to control soaring health-care prices with health-care rationing and below-market compensation for doctors.
More scare nonsense. :roll:
Oh, an unsubstantiated reference to Canada's defunct health care that has no basis in reality. Like I haven't seen one of those before.
Yep. Not to mention it is nothing like what we're doing and trying to do here.
Healthcare reform is properly understood as the most important social justice legislation in over forty years. Repeal is not an option.
Healthcare reform is properly understood as the most important social justice legislation in over forty years. Repeal is not an option.
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | ReutersAmericans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday. ...
I wasn't around during the healthcare debate or was busy. What exactly in the reform is to the advantage to the industry and how is it a handout to them? Just wanna know.
Yeah, what you have happening now is worse than it was before the health bill.
It compels business owners to provide insurance plans for their employees and compels the employees to accept them, regardless of the cost. And since the "reform" also requires the insurance companies to insure a number of high-risk clients, those costs are going to increase.
Basically, instead of dismantling the health insurance industry-- which is an essential component to any meaningful healthcare reform-- they're forcing people to give it more money.
Actually, by requiring everyone be insured, this makes a price increase less needed. The well people help pay for the ill people. This is how insurance works.
Not true if you're under 40, they have to pay a lot more for the something they most won't need.
Not really fair when you find out that the economic situation isn't financially friendly to young people these days.
False. First, you never know what you will need (another tenent of insurance), and second, if you live long enough, you will need it. But the point is, the money to pay for the ill always has to come from those not ill. Once you have more ill than not ill, your insurance goes away.
Statistically it isn't false, most young people don't need comprehensive insurance.
It serves no purpose, except for catastrophic coverage.
I didn't say you'll never need it, I said they don't need it as it is.
They don't, on top of that they will be paying more when they have less money, compared to older people, who have had years of economic prosperity and the opportunity to build wealth for their years waning health.
It's another form of backwards generational wealth transfer.
And those who do end up needing it, if they don't have it, become a burden. You miss the point completely. And this si one reason the public option or something like it would have been a better option. But the fact is, if you are going to do away with pre-existing conditions, and we should, then everyone has to be insured, without any public option or like program. The well have to help pay for the ill. That is how insurance works.
No we should charge more for people who use it more.
Basically you're supporting a type of regressive taxation, which funnily enough you probably normally oppose, except when it suits your political agenda.
Public option is just the same as this, we all pay for people who don't want to pay for themselves.
You kind of thinking encourages mass consumption and negative savings rates because you're always willing to bail out individuals for ****ty choices.
Not how insurance is suppose to work. Nor would it be practical. Sooner than later, those using it would be priced out, as they have bene in the past. And what would really help, which you would oppose, are guidelines about what will be paid for and what wouldn't. Believe it or not, doctors do have a good idea about what is needed and what isn't. And insurance companies have been making such decisions for a long time now. But real need requires more than just letting the ill pay for it. A valid insurance system does need to be in play.
Insurance works by classifying people based on usage and probability of injury.
It is broken down by age, gender and ailment, as well as other criteria.
Now, we can't price based on gender, age based pricing is now further limited and lastly we are seeing ailment based pricing be put to the screws.
I know how insurance works and what you're advocating for is putting all the costs on to young people, particularly young males.
It's not right, it's discriminatory in all the wrong ways.
Your nationalization programs will not solve the problems within the medical industry.
It just limits the options that people have, because you're not addressing the one singular problem.
Personal choices are the direct drivers of health related problems.
Let people actually see and be responsible for the cost of their care more easily, and costs will decrease. All the mandate will do is encourage more people to use the system more when they don't need to. They're already paying for it. Why not milk the system.
I'm not sure if you do or don't know, but the fact is insurance works by spreading the paying. It needs well people to pay of ill people. Without this, as I said, people when they need insurance most will be push off the insurance.
And I won't say personal choice doesn't play a role, but the more serious choices people do no matter what we do with insurance. They choose to smoke, eat poorly, not exercise regularly, talk on cell phones while driving, speed, and play with tools and weapons they are not proficient at. Doing so pus them in situations where they need care, and too many find they are not adequately insured to cover it. We don't turn them away, so someone else has to pick up the bill in an unorganized and ineffective manner.
Again, a universal insurer, payor would be best, but absent that, we really have little other choice.
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?