Same people who pay for the defense contractor boondoggles.
Same people who pay for the defense contractor boondoggles.
GOP deep thinker wrote:
Gotta ask... wrote:Since I am a 'typical lib' please tell me where this link says anything about the health care exiting for all in these countries? And where it speaks about what their specific systems are?
I mean you are such a deep thinker and all.
Man, you are such a typical lib! Won't do any work yourself and just want to freeload off of others blood, sweat and tears. Well, I am not going to spoon feed you everything! If you look into the methods behind the ranking of Economic Freedom, Healthcare systems / policies in the various countries factor in--there is a 2011 article in the Atlantic where this is discussed, you can look that up yourself.
Here is a link explaining that we brilliant GOPers KNOW that Government run healthcare is a disaster and that the ONLY solution for our healthcare ills is FREE MARKET reform....
http://www.republicanviews.org/republican-views-on-health-care/....I made this easy for you, you only need to read the first paragraph in the link.
Now, if you simply do a google search you can many, many quotes from GOP members of congress explaining the FACT that healthcare in countries with government run systems are terrible for the economy and for general health. There are even quotes from Trump (praise be upon him) saying similar things about other countries healthcare systems.
Thus, I have established the FACTS that 1) Healthcare factors into the economic freedom ranking of countries by the prestigious and conservative Heritage Foundation which is linked to above 2) Brilliant and thoughtful leaders of the GOP understand that ONLY free market reform can make healthcare work and that government involvement in healthcare hurts economies and health.
Now little libbtard all that you need to do is look at the rankings, look at the countries ranked ahead of the US, and google the healthcare systems in those countries. I'll help you--look up the systems in Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Canada (all ranked ahead of the us in terms of Economic Freedom) and you'll see that these systems are all 100% pure free market systems. FACT!
This is the empirical basis of the well-thoughtout, detailed and realistic plan that the GOP has had in their back pocket all along. The brilliance of their well-thoughtout plan--which they clearly have had for YEARS and had ready to go the 60+ times they voted to repeal OBUMMERcare--is based on these economic realities spelled out in the Heritage Foundation rankings.
#MAGA
#unpresidented
#whoknewhealthcarewassocomplex
Interesting opinions you have my friend.
Doctor Watson wrote:
Gotta ask... wrote:Since I am a 'typical lib' please tell me where this link says anything about the health care exiting for all in these countries? And where it speaks about what their specific systems are?
I mean you are such a deep thinker and all.
Dude - Please get a clue.
GOP deep thinker is Flagpole - a well-know liberal.
Please wake up, smell some coffee or something.
#toopainfultowatch
No idea who Flagpole is... probably because I don't spend as much time here as you do. And you my friend have shown me why that makes sense.
#getouttathehousemore
DiscoGary wrote:
mellow seeds wrote:While I think he exposed you as being completely full of it, I think we all appreciate you not torturing us all with a discussion of scanners.
Too late.
Nope, not too late. You havent demonstrated any knowledge of how these scanners work or the differences between scanners. If this is truly your field you should feel embarrassed. Go ahead and try to explain the underlying physics and I'll tear you to shreds. I know who you are, I know you're a pathetic fraud. I called your bluff and we all watched you fold.
That was quite a rant! wrote:
Helluva rant bruh. So, what exactly are you saying congress should do? What's the solution to our healthcare mess?
Damn right it was...I lost a family member to drug-induced renal & pancreatic failure from "correctly" prescribed medications for an autoimmune disease! The whole system is a complete mess...read those links that I posted.
Congress doesn't take this seriously, but they could start by dismantling the FDA and by holding doctors accountable for the iatrogenic damage they cause. It's amazing the trail of destruction some of these doctors leave behind & the impact it has on the families, and with very little consequences because in many cases it deemed "standard medical care." More like standard medical death! ðŸ˜
Medical System Madness wrote:
That was quite a rant! wrote:Helluva rant bruh. So, what exactly are you saying congress should do? What's the solution to our healthcare mess?
Damn right it was...I lost a family member to drug-induced renal & pancreatic failure from "correctly" prescribed medications for an autoimmune disease! The whole system is a complete mess...read those links that I posted.
Congress doesn't take this seriously, but they could start by dismantling the FDA and by holding doctors accountable for the iatrogenic damage they cause. It's amazing the trail of destruction some of these doctors leave behind & the impact it has on the families, and with very little consequences because in many cases it deemed "standard medical care." More like standard medical death! ðŸ˜
Sorry to here about your family member. That really sucks.
But, is your plan literally to abolish the FDA and hold doctors accountable? Is that it? How does that improve access, coverage, and lower costs? There seems to be a few elements missing from your plan.
Gotta ask... wrote:
Doctor Watson wrote:Dude - Please get a clue.
GOP deep thinker is Flagpole - a well-know liberal.
Please wake up, smell some coffee or something.
#toopainfultowatch
No idea who Flagpole is... probably because I don't spend as much time here as you do. And you my friend have shown me why that makes sense.
#getouttathehousemore
Thus demonstrating that you are both a liar and and an ignoramus.
#sorryyouarealoserbutthat'sjustthewayitis
L L wrote:
So you're saying that they aren't ordering too many MRIs but making too many good MRI machines.
Fair enough.
So instead of every hospital having a good machine, maybe only 1 in 3 should have a good one.
But I'm choosing that that third hospital to go to if I can.
I'm betting most hospitals will want to be the one to boast that they have the good equipment.
And what if in this Right Wing Free Market Utopia of health care, I a rich healthcare mogul buys up all the hospitals in a region, then REMOVES the MRI machines form most of them in order to force patients to go to the 1 hospital in the region that has this equipment? And guess what, because it is the only hospital with this equipment it is going to cost A LOT, I can charge anything I want for the most basic MRI because you have no choice.
MRIs are just one example of that, I could do this to almost any medical service, because hey "free market".
Doctor Watson wrote:
Gotta ask... wrote:No idea who Flagpole is... probably because I don't spend as much time here as you do. And you my friend have shown me why that makes sense.
#getouttathehousemore
Thus demonstrating that you are both a liar and and an ignoramus.
#sorryyouarealoserbutthat'sjustthewayitis
hahahahaha
#hahahahaha
Hope this is not dumb question wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong but this issue seems pretty simple. We either pay for the uninsured now or later. The costs have to be MUCH higher later. My analogy would be it's cheaper to change the oil in your car than it would be to neglect the maintenance and replace the engine.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this, I truly don't understand the Republican point of view. Unless they are saying turn people away at the emergency room.
I'll try this once. The premise that republicans don't want all people to have healthcare is false. The liberals phrase everything conservatives want to do as a personal attack on people, ie they want to kill old folks, poor people, they want to take away your freedoms, etc. If you stop thinking that way then you will realize that republicans don't want the government involved in healthcare because the people that make the rules will eventually ruin everything.
You will never have 100% coverage, just the same way you can not have everyone be a billionaire. You can only hope to maximize the outcome. Real republicans believe the free market will yield the best results for everyone.
Regulate health care wrote:
The problem is regulating health insurance rather than the high cost of health care. I know people will jump in here and cry socialism etc., but, we need to start thinking of health care as a basic need like schooling. Not everything needs to exist to make profit only. Medical care is big business in the states, and that is the fundamental problem. If you stopped wanting to profit off people getting sick you could find a better solution.
Health insurance could be radically altered if the Networks were eliminated and health care providers were absorbed into a not for profit program. Good wages would still be obtainable by practitioners because of the savings from network fees, overhead, and profits. I align them with union bosses. Health insurance could be used to purchase Cadillac upgrades over the standard service.
ItsBaddude wrote:
I'll try this once. The premise that republicans don't want all people to have healthcare is false. The liberals phrase everything conservatives want to do as a personal attack on people, ie they want to kill old folks, poor people, they want to take away your freedoms, etc. If you stop thinking that way then you will realize that republicans don't want the government involved in healthcare because the people that make the rules will eventually ruin everything.
You will never have 100% coverage, just the same way you can not have everyone be a billionaire. You can only hope to maximize the outcome. Real republicans believe the free market will yield the best results for everyone.
This is patently, even grotesquely FALSE.
(1) It is certainly NOT true that you can not achieve 100% coverage. One payer system supported by taxes covers everyone.
(2) Further, comparing the difficulties in covering everyone to the difficulties in having everyone be obscenely rich is preposterous. Even if one accepted for the sake of argument that you cannot reach 100% coverage the challenges in trying to obtain that level are 100% uncorrelated with the challenges in making everyone obscenely rich.
Try using logic and valid arguments. It won't hurt. I promise.
DiscoGary wrote:
Why didn't ObamaCare work?
ObamaCare worked. The number of uninsured people dropped dramatically. The numbers would have been even more dramatic if the medicaid expanse didn't become a political issue.
Obamacare was designed to promote coverage not to aggressively attack the price of medical treatment. There were a few minor tweaks but they weren't anything that was going to change the trend of the past 30 years of rising medical costs.
The big problem with Obamacare and Trumpcare is that they are dealing with small subsets of the population. I doubt you are going to get major changes until you increase the number of americans affected by it. Something like 50% of the people get insurance through their job and 35% through medicare/medicaid. It is only 15% of the population that is out shopping for insurance that is directly playing in the free market (obamacare has some indirect effects on everything else). Policies tend to work better when they are inclusive like SS/Medicare and get diverse when most people don't get benefits (see medicaid)
If America believes that healthcare is every citizens right... then it needs to be service provided by regulated by and funded by taxes through the government. The same as education K-12, roads, law enforcement, fire, etc.
If America does not want the government to regulate/provide and fund through taxes healthcare then it's a service, not a right and American's have the right to choose to or not to purchase a service. The same as your choice to heat at McDonalds or make your own healthy dinner, what clothes to wear, what car to drive, do drive a car or use a bus, etc.
So make up your damn minds.
Whooty wrote:
If America believes that healthcare is every citizens right... then it needs to be service provided by regulated by and funded by taxes through the government. The same as education K-12, roads, law enforcement, fire, etc.
If America does not want the government to regulate/provide and fund through taxes healthcare then it's a service, not a right and American's have the right to choose to or not to purchase a service. The same as your choice to heat at McDonalds or make your own healthy dinner, what clothes to wear, what car to drive, do drive a car or use a bus, etc.
So make up your damn minds.
The one thing I know is that I don't want my healthcare handled by the same people who manage the DMV.
It doesn't necessarily have to be. You can have universal coverage through a multi-payer system that is government funded with privately run care. This is how Germany, France and Japan do it among others. They also have much lower costs (for citizens and the government itself) with better outcomes for patients. I advise everyone here to look into this form of healthcare. It's called the Bismarck model.
Educated guy wrote:
TroLLminator wrote:This twisted logic is constantly used in other debates, it somehow makes people emotional and is simplistic enough for any Joe Dirt to feel empowered and knowledgeable.
The reality is this is one of many issues which the whole country pays for everyone else's choices and misfortunes. It's such an easy reality to grasp yet politicians keep telling people it doesn't have to work like that somehow. Our country is so fat and sick and our system so corrupt that it will be difficult and expensive to get on the right track (ACA-type structure), but we really never had a choice and have been kicking the can down the road.
It will never be perfect or smooth. I wish the healthcare/insurance system was more closely tied to one's health and lifestyle. Sure I may pay less than others because I'm younger and healthier, but it's peanuts less than the 300lb smoker down the road. That part I find unfair, but I prefer to make sure that fata$$ is covered because we are all paying for him anyway. Until we are at the point that hospitals can deny services to people, we are going to have to pay dearly for an all-inclusive system.
Every damn health insurance thread on Letsrun is terribly void of identifying the root of the problem with our health care system. Hasn't anyone taken an economics class around here? Jeez.
Here's what needs to be addressed in the US "health insurance" system:
1) It's based on a fee-for-service business model (incredibly inefficient), and 2) it is "managed" by a third party payment system (also incredibly inefficient).
The ACA did virtually nothing to address either of these characteristics. It approached the problem from the demand side. Which, of course, only exasperates the problem by increasing demand [for the inefficiently-provided care].
Neither party wants to actually fix the problem. If you believe otherwise, you're a fool.
Fixing the problem would involve reducing health insurers' involvement for basic health-related goods and services. Eliminating it in most cases. If I have a cold or flu, or have a basic broken finger, or need a prescription for something, I shouldn't need to have Mr Health Insurer come in and skim some off the top of every single transaction between me and the doctor/hospital. Those prices should be published and doctors/hospitals can compete for the business of helping me resolve these basic health problems.
Complimentary to the above, fixing the problem would involve more properly defining and allowing insurance companies to actually do what "insurance" is supposed to do (risk/actuarial management). They are currently NOT allowed to do this. I repeat: Insurance companies are not allowed to function as real insurance. Anyway, since the basic health-related issues would now NOT skimmed off the top by the health insurance companies, they'd be making their money here. We could have a true "risk pool" for the truly catastrophic health events that occur in our lives. And yes, go ahead and cover everyone here. This could be a relatively standard proportion of an individual's income, with perhaps some progressiveness built in for the upper few percentile folks.
With just these two changes (albeit major changes, in the current climate), we'd greatly reduce the fee-for-service business model and the third-party payment system we have in place, and costs would actually start to come down. And AFTER costs start to come down, then guess what you can do? That's right, you can COVER MORE PEOPLE.
Our genius lawyer-trained (also a FEE-FOR-SERVICE industry, mind you) politicians tried to cover more people first, and not deal with the costs at all second.
Holy Shit. Someone actually gets it. Username definitely checks out.
Shoebacca wrote:
Regulation has saved this country time and again. It's been a mark of civilization.
Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
I'll assume so.
adfsasdf wrote:
...
Obamacare was designed to promote coverage not to aggressively attack the price of medical treatment.
...
Obama promised that ObamaCare would save families an average of $2,500 per year, so YES it was supposed to cut costs.
Of course, the architect of ObamaCare Jonathan Gruber admitted that they told that lie to fool the stupid American people, but that it is how it was advertised.
DiscoGary wrote:
What if nobody had insurance? wrote:...
The free market can't just conjure up competition that will drive down prices and drive up standards.
....
That is exactly what free markets do.
no you see, first you have to tie the markets hands with 10000 regulations every step of the way, and THEN it won't work! checkmate capitalists!
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
Need female opinions: I’m dating a woman that is very sexual with me in public. Any tips/insight?
2024 Boston marathon - The first non-carbon assisted finisher ran..... 2:34