{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/1/2013 10:49:47 PM
6
Implying cheaper healthcare is somehow important and negates the horrible economics of obamacare.
English
-
由Twisted Love编辑： 2/2/2013 12:13:00 AMNo, it's not. You have to factor in taxation, who's paying for the resources, the amount of people who will use the resources, etc. You clearly have no concept of economics and aren't smart enough to think about the variables. The statement "cheapness is the only important factor" makes you lose all credibility (not that you had much).
-
由Dustin编辑： 2/2/2013 12:41:01 AMBy requiring the rich to pay a little more (a little to them, is a lot to us) it helps balance out the system. And by making people who don't usually pay, pay for their healthcare when they have unexpected visits to the hospital they can't afford or have the insurance for. I don't know where the cut off income until you're paying more for insurance would be, but it's probably up there.
-
No it doesn't. There's no way taxing the rich is going to fill the price gaps to make an entire national healthcare system. You could tax them 50% and you'd still have to obtain a lot of money from another source (which will be the taxation of everyone, regardless of income). Also, the idea of people contributing to the system they may or may not use is a good idea in my opinion. However insurance and payment is how we ration our resources, and that's how our healthcare quality is so high.
-
I didn't do the math, so I can only speculate where the funds come from. But the system is much simpler than the old one, and we spend much more on healthcare than anyone else in the world, I think by twice as much as the next highest country, but we actually have one of the worst healthcare systems compared to other first world nations. I'm assuming there's a lot of redistributing, but again, I wouldn't really know, but I doubt they'd put out a system that doesn't work into action.
-
Well it's the worst in terms of who gets treated, which I know isn't many because of the costs and some complexities with insurance, but once someone gets treated, they usually fare a lot better. Our surgeons have high success rates. I agree with the fact that our system isn't perfect, but our medical quality is pretty high. Obamacare really has to factor in a lot when it comes to funds. If they can fund the program well, and keep the quality high, then by all means I'll be for it. But that isn't a very easy task.
