{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/8/2017 11:13:55 PM
38
I like how Bernie and Ted agree on one fundamental point - insurance companies are assholes.
Fortunately, there is a solution to that problem. Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to acknowledge that solution.
English
-
Edited by RandyDaGod: 2/9/2017 1:07:00 AM[quote]Fortunately, there is a solution to that problem. Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to acknowledge that solution.[/quote] They have addressed it. Open up state lines to create competition and drive prices down. I mean why wouldn't the Dems want to even try it? Oh that's right. It'll work and it will be one less thing the government can control.
-
[quote][quote]Fortunately, there is a solution to that problem. Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to acknowledge that solution.[/quote] They have addressed it. Open up state lines to create competition and drive prices down. I mean why wouldn't the Dems want to even try it? Oh that's right. It'll work and it will be one less thing the government can control.[/quote]Why would that drive costs down? Insurance companies have not shown that they compete for better consumer prices. They drive costs UP, not DOWN.
-
Competition has been proven again and again to lower prices. Come on max, this is basic economics
-
[quote]Why would that drive costs down? Insurance companies have not shown that they compete for better consumer prices. They drive costs UP, not DOWN.[/quote] It's called capitalism. Maybe you don't remember, but before people were forced to buy health insurance or pay a huge fine, health insurance was affordable.
-
When there's only 1 MAYBE 2 options in a state for insurance there's no reason to lower costs. There's no one to compete with your prices. I don't see how that isn't understood by people. Hell you create more opportunities for insurance it'll lower the cost of the ACA and actually make it affordable. [spoiler]yes I'm not ok with completely repealing the ACA[/spoiler]
-
[quote]I like how Bernie and Ted agree on one fundamental point - insurance companies are assholes. Fortunately, there is a solution to that problem. Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to acknowledge that solution.[/quote] Let me guess single Payer? No thanks I'd rather deal with a greedy insurance company than a greedy government who rations medicine I'd rather be in control my own health care rather than the government and don't tell me insurance companies are in control because they're not
-
[quote][quote]I like how Bernie and Ted agree on one fundamental point - insurance companies are assholes. Fortunately, there is a solution to that problem. Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to acknowledge that solution.[/quote] Let me guess single Payer? No thanks I'd rather deal with a greedy insurance company than a greedy government who rations medicine I'd rather be in control my own health care rather than the government and don't tell me insurance companies are in control because they're not[/quote] You'd rather pay more money for healthcare and prescriptions than less? That's odd.
-
Do you know how countries like Canada can even afford to have a national Health Care?
-
[quote]Do you know how countries like Canada can even afford to have a national Health Care?[/quote]Because everyone's taxes pay for it. It'd gladly pay more in taxes if it meant I, and everyone else, was free from the burden of health insurance.
-
Correct, but it isn't a small tax. They would be taxing over half of your income, and unless you make well over 6 figures you are going to have a bad time. Its not a big deal in Canada because the population is significantly lower (only around 35 million) and the cost of living is of course lower. However, in a country with about 350 million people the government would need to tax the shit out of everyone in order to pay for the tens of millions of medical expenses each year. Not everyone could afford it, and medical professionals would also be screwed over.
-
Edited by Insanearmer: 2/9/2017 3:19:29 AM@razor. It's wouldn't make a difference for 35mil to 350mil everyone is paying into it. I don't understand why you guys are against universal health care? Everyone get covered. People that don't make enough are e exempt from having to pay through income tax and middle and upper pay through income tax. I have no problem having to pay a little more to help the less fortunate. Everyone deserves to be healthy and if they get deathly ill they don't lose there house to pay for treatment.
-
Edited by Catty_Wampus22: 2/9/2017 5:21:45 AM[quote]Correct, but it isn't a small tax. They would be taxing over half of your income, and unless you make well over 6 figures you are going to have a bad time. Its not a big deal in Canada because the population is significantly lower (only around 35 million) and the cost of living is of course lower. However, in a country with about 350 million people the government would need to tax the shit out of everyone in order to pay for the tens of millions of medical expenses each year. Not everyone could afford it, and medical professionals would also be screwed over.[/quote] In 2004 Nader's plan was a 2% tax on speculative trades, which was enough to cover it.
-
[quote]Correct, but it isn't a small tax. [/quote]If I'm paying $2,000 more in tax, but no longer paying $5,000 for healthcare, that's a savings of $3,000.
-
Edited by RazorRyan: 2/9/2017 2:30:32 AMTry reading more than the first sentence before you reply next time.
-
[quote]Try reading more than the first sentence before you reply next time.[/quote]Try answering basic questions next time.
-
You didn't ask a question, you replied to ONE point I made from the first sentence of a paragraph. Try again.
-
[quote][quote][quote]I like how Bernie and Ted agree on one fundamental point - insurance companies are assholes. Fortunately, there is a solution to that problem. Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to acknowledge that solution.[/quote] Let me guess single Payer? No thanks I'd rather deal with a greedy insurance company than a greedy government who rations medicine I'd rather be in control my own health care rather than the government and don't tell me insurance companies are in control because they're not[/quote] You'd rather pay more money for healthcare and prescriptions than less? That's odd.[/quote] Single payer is more expensive but you're missing the point. I actually want the ability to get healthcare and not be at the mercy of the government who has to ration it. This is pure logic government can't afford everyone's healthcare that's why in places like Canada you have death panels
-
[quote] that's why in places like Canada you have death panels[/quote] Jesus how high were you when you wrote that?
-
Edited by Insanearmer: 2/9/2017 3:12:34 AMDo you know what the death panel actually does in canada?
-
Edited by Catty_Wampus22: 2/9/2017 2:56:03 AMBut [Quote]Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School points out that "we are already spending enough to provide every American with superb medical care - $5,775 per person this year [2003]. That’s 42% higher than in Switzerland, which has the world’s second most expensive health care system, and 83% higher than in Canada." Indeed, 14.9 percent of our gross domestic product is spent on health care and the cost is growing rapidly. Japan spends 7.6% of its GDP, Australia 8.5%, Holland 8.6% and Canada 9.5%. By 2013, per capita health care spending in the U.S. is projected to increase to 18.4 percent of GDP. A recent study by David U. Himmelstein, MD and Dr. Woolhandler found that our current system is wasteful and obstructively bureaucratic: Over 24% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead2, CEO salaries, profits, and other non-clinical costs. Because the U.S. does not have a system that serves everyone and instead has over 1,500 different insurance plans, each with their own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, rules, and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented. The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO.[/quote]
-
No, its not. Its far cheaper per capita. And if you want to go Private, you can. *shrug*
-
[quote]No, its not. Its far cheaper per capita. And if you want to go Private, you can. *shrug*[/quote] 1. Private is better quality hands down so don't shrug 2. No actually it more expensive unless you have a severe medical expense. You're paying for healthcare in your taxes even if you're healthy and on top of that beurocracy sucks up money so only half and I'm being nice saying half actually goes into medicine
-
Edited by Bieltan: 2/9/2017 12:16:26 AMAmericans pay on average $8300 odd per capita, UK we pay around $3400. Of course it can vary. But on average, its significantly cheaper, sorry mate but thats a fact. As for private being better quality, it better -blam!-ing be for those prices! I dont have rich-person envy. Well, not enough to send me REEEEing to the government for, I dunno, a free private jet or whatever the rich-envious want... Oh, and emergency treatment is always high quality. Get hit by a bus, you'll be seen instantly. Hell you're likely to get airlifted into the centre of London to the top surgeons.
-
I mean, it worked in Canada. The only thing that sucks is the long wait times.
-
There isn't any long wait times unless it's not an emergency. I live here and when I've been seriously injured I was admitted right way. Universal health care is where it's at. I pay 80 bucks a mouth for basic and another 30 for extended through my work and that covers my whole family.
