Who pays more for healthcare? You quote an article and how having universal health will drive up costs. That is such misleading garbage paid by the lobbyists. Let’s compare https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends
Watching live stream of rally I heard these sad pathetic folks boo healthcare for everyone. They are so brainwashed they are booing taking care of their countrymen and themselves. Forget the argument about the cost and who pays for it because that wasn't mentioned in the political one line fodder. Just the one sentence wanting healthcare for everyone drew boos. I've read about this before, prior to Reformation using illiteracy and as a tool to control. Folks who attend these type of rallies are figuratively illiterate in today's modern times and I'd bet some are literally illiterate.
Funny you'd say that given how unhinged you seem to be just talking about Ted Cruz, Dan Patrick, or Donald Trump....it's pretty emotional for you isn't it? Did you catch your wife blowing one of them or something?
Before I click, can you tell me who pays more? There's only so much clicking I can do in a day. If I had to guess -- as seems logical -- it's probably people who use healthcare more. And that's the thing. If you live right, by and large, you don't need all that much healthcare. So if you want to keep using it, guess what, it will probably cost you more. The comment after the Breitbart article was especially incisive.
lol. when breitbart get the facts wrong or straight up lies its "hyperbole", but when rolling stone gets the facts wrong then its dishonest, biased and not independent. so rolling stone has a political agenda and breitbart doesnt? you really are out there dude... all these trumpublicans constantly whining about media bias and fake news, but want to cite breitbart as a credible, honest news organization. what a pathetic joke!
funnier how you say that others are unhinged for talking about lyin' ted, dan patrick or donald trump while at the same time having post after post after post after post obsessing over betos name....its pretty emotional for you isnt it? and since you mentioned wives, how about lyin' ted hugging up on the dude who called his wife ugly? tough as texas, right boreby?
the other thing funny about that picture is that it really shows what a dumpy fat ass trump is. this dude constantly makes fun of others peoples appearances, but look at that big dumpy fat ass on him. looks like he is wearing a tire around his waist. its disgusting. not to mention the bizarre hair, the lobster tan with the obvious goggle covers over his eyes, the tiny hands. a truly hideous person inside and out.
It's not FOR talking about them, it's the unhinged manner in which they are doing so. Try to keep up killer.
There is so much wrong in this sentence. If you believe this, you probably should be disqualified from having a rationale discussion on healthcare. I really wish this was the case, but we don't live in fantasy land man (well, most of us). It's really unfortunate that we have these 5 minute experts. Let's read an article on Breitbart, and now I know everything. Do some due diligence (i.e. fact checking, if facts are important to you, maybe or maybe not at this point) and some critical thinking. You are being fed crap, and therefore spewing out crap. You're being taken advantage of, and it's sad to see, because by all accounts, you seem like a good dude.
I think that comment is spot on. Our two biggest market failures right now are in health care and college education and the cause is a third party that is designed to increase access and consumption (the third, less glamorous one I would add are the old-style regulated monopoly investor owned utilities). But I don't think the problem is just the third party. I think the problem is that is that there is a mis-aligned partnership where you have a risk-socializing body (insurance, education dept, utility regulator) doing business with a revenue-privatizing body (hospitals, universities, investor-owned utiltities). The latter takes advantage of the former to increase prices and finance economically irrational decisions. There are 3 routes out: (1) remove the risk-socializing entity to force customers to make real decisions and let the market discipline providers (privatization), (2) remove the revenue-maximizing entities and give regulators the power to set reasonable prices (nationalization), and (3) get very clever about reforming the risk-revenue market structure to get all the incentives right for a well-functioning market. Obamacare tries to execute #3 and I don't think we'll get to know if it would have worked because it was hamstrung right out of the gate. Single payer would be approach #2; I think it is inferior to a market approach, but probably better than a failed market. Conservatives instinctively gravitate to option #1 -- economically the most straight-forward and least likely to fail, but essentially doomed to fall short of what we think is a moral imperative in healthcare: keeping even uneconomic people healthy. So, I think the diagnosis is probably right, but I don't think you are taking the implication to its rational conclusion.
Heh, thanks for the last sentence, at least. I have been intimately acquainted with our health care system over the past three years, dealing with my elderly parents. I am very familiar with what private insurance pays, and what it doesn't pay or cover. What Medicare covers, and what it doesn't. I have been in emergency rooms on more than one occasion (when my Dad had to go there), and I've seen what happens there. (My Dad said it very well -- "I'm paying for everyone else here." -- a bit over the top, but generally true.) And also, in my own dealings with the insurance and health care coverage. I tried to find out what a prescription cost, in total, on one occasion recently. Good luck. The insurance companies don't want you to know that. All I knew is that it cost me $10. Hey, that's great. But from that, you can see how the comment in the Breitbart article was totally on the mark. If we have the "illusion" that health coverage is cheap, where's the incentive to minimize it's use? Price is a sorting mechanism, and transparency is needed. We don't have it right now. Some might say by design. I'll concede the idea that health care is so expensive probably has multiple reasons, or factors. Especially when you get into high technology stuff. But hiding the price from consumers, via insurance, is a big part of it.
I think we both agree that this is a complicated matter, and that it can be improved upon. And more transparency is almost always a good thing, so we are in agreement there as well. I have some firsthand experience as well with family, and it became painfully obvious that our healthcare system is a business first and foremost, with helping the sick get healthy a very distant second. I believe our policy should help as many people as possible, and if I need to be inconvenienced a little for the greater good, so be it. That's just my personal opinion, I wouldn't begrudge anyone for feeling differently.
Border Enforcement Totally Optional I lol'd. Poor Beto - his fake Mexican name creates the perfect acronym for him!
That is not true. Some people will pay more, some people will pay less, but overall the cost of healthcare will go down since we will have more pricing power, and you can't have hospitals charge $100 for a Tylenol. Younger, healthier people will be subsidizing older unhealthy people, but I think it is Okay.
And sure it'll lead to having to literally double taxes on everyone.....but that's okay because I'm sure that won't have a negative impact on the economy and people will love the VA quality healthcare that their taxes will buy them. I mean, who cares about reduced quality when you have more access to see a PA after waiting a few months amirite?
