- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 3,751
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Note that the defenders of the pre-ACA USA health system have not provided any statistics supporting the claim that it is better than the systems in other countries that are approximately as prosperous as the USA.
When only two of the five factors deciding best healthcare are actually healthcare factors, the rankings are silly.
Then provide some other type of assessment of relative quality. Cost and equality are definitely relevant factors in assessing health care quality.
You are confusing private with privatized. The state doesn't usually build roads or anything, they pay private companies to build it with taxpayer funds, this is privatization.
Privatization, may have several meanings. Primarily, it is the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service or public property from the public sector (a government) to the private sector, either to a business that operates for a profit or to a nonprofit organization. It may also mean government outsourcing of services or functions to private firms, e.g. revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management.[1]
Wikipedia
pri·vat·ize
transitive verb \ˈprī-və-ˌtīz\
: to remove (something) from government control and place it in private control or ownership
Full Definition of PRIVATIZE
: to make private; especially : to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership
— pri·vat·i·za·tion noun
Websters
Note that the defenders of the pre-ACA USA health system have not provided any statistics supporting the claim that it is better than the systems in other countries that are approximately as prosperous as the USA.
Why are non-healthcare factors important for finding out who has the best healthcare?
It's no secret that the US healthcare system is a disaster, and of all developed nations, the US has some of the worst healthcare and overall health.
They're really the same thing though - Cost determines availability (and to some degree, quality), and availability is what people mean when they say "equality".Then provide some other type of assessment of relative quality. Cost and equality are definitely relevant factors in assessing health care quality.
So, we have great medical care but poor health care?System may be bad. But medicine, the best in the world.
[/url]
I also love the poll choices, no choices unless you're a Obamacare buttlicker. :roll:
So, we have great medical care but poor health care?
I half wonder if reassigning all the funding for ACA to subsidize non-paying hospital vists would be more effective...but then I don't know much about how health care works or doesn't, apart from what the news blathers about recently.Not accessible to all. However I've never seen someone, who were denied to help in the hospital.
The first thing would be to have every state define all health related things the same. This is currently not done.
I thought I had it right.Privatization, also spelled privatisation, may have several meanings. Primarily, it is the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service or public property from the public sector (a government) to the private sector, either to a business that operates for a profit or to a nonprofit organization. It may also mean government outsourcing of services or functions to private firms, e.g. revenue collection, law enforcement, and prison management.[1]
Wikipedia
pri·vat·ize
transitive verb \ˈprī-və-ˌtīz\
: to remove (something) from government control and place it in private control or ownership
Full Definition of PRIVATIZE
: to make private; especially : to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership
— pri·vat·i·za·tion noun
Websters
I thought I had it right.
The first thing would be to have every state define all health related things the same. This is currently not done.
I clearly did by the definition. Taking from public control to private. I can also say in support of private healthcare and insurance. Means the same thing basically. One is taking from the government and making it private, one is just private, meaning the govt didn't have control in the first place. Either way I support both in healthcare and insurance.You didn't.
I clearly did by the definition. Taking from public control to private. I can also say in support of private healthcare and insurance. Means the same thing basically. One is taking from the government and making it private, one is just private, meaning the govt didn't have control in the first place. Either way I support both in healthcare and insurance.
No that's not what the complete definition says. Its taking something that was public and making it private. Can mean outsourcing, that can lead to tax funds being used. It can be what you said yes, but that's not what I support.Yes, like taking tax money that paid for state guards in prisons and turning the prison over to a private company and still paying the guard with taxation (like I said).
The real reason that Obama decided to change the medical system in the country, this redistribution of the money flow in favor of the state institutions. If Obama really wanted to make changes for the better, the first thing he would have done it increased aid for medical students. Сountry needs a large increase number of doctors and nurses. Country needs a large increase number hospitals and universal care clinics. And only after that, create a database for full coverage of the population.
No that's not what the complete definition says. Its taking something that was public and making it private. Can mean outsourcing, that can lead to tax funds being used. It can be what you said yes, but that's not what I support.
How about buying insurance across state lines?
Can't do that. Health insurers and their salesmen across the country would lose their semi-protected status. That could result in competition for business and commissions.How about buying insurance across state lines?
Can't do that. Health insurers and their salesmen across the country would lose their semi-protected status. That could result in competition for business and commissions.
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?