User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:38:58 AM EDT
[#1]
Nothing. The Senate will put a "fix" in a must-pass bill, and the Republicans will cave.
/thtread |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:39:14 AM EDT
[#2]
double tap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:41:45 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing. The Senate will put a "fix" in a must-pass bill, and the Republicans will cave. /thtread This is exactly what will happen. I think Obamacare is terrible, but hoping that it is somehow cancelled in one fell swoop rather than carefully unwound is like hoping for SHTF because you think it will be fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:46:11 AM EDT
[#4]
Getting rid of Obamacare wouldn't be hard.
Just send everyone cancellation notices and throw away all the paperwork concerning the law. People have to get new plans. Oh well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:47:09 AM EDT
[#5]
Øbama will just sign an executive order re instating it. He is king.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:48:17 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Getting rid of Obamacare wouldn't be hard. Just send everyone cancellation notices and throw away all the paperwork concerning the law. People have to get new plans. Oh well. It's no where near that simple.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:49:13 AM EDT
[#7]
The 3% tax upon the seller of a home - crazy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:51:01 AM EDT
[#8]
The job numbers will FINALLY improve a bit if Obamacare finally dies. i.e. The REAL unemployment number "U6" or whatever it is that counts all the people who've "given up", or are "underemployed" in part-time burger-flipping jobs.. Not the fake U1 number that's just this quarter's unemployment claims vs. "new jobs".
And Obama and the Democrats will get the credit for the job numbers improving in the Mainstream Media. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:54:27 AM EDT
[#9]
The free market will fill in the demand for insurance policies of varying levels.
IF there is a buck to be made the insurance companies will package a product, I don't trust the government to do it. As for those companies that were complicit with the government IOT drive the smaller companies out of the market, may leprosy be upon them. Its their fault EVERYBODY has to carry the same coverages for stuff not even relevant to their gender. They could have easily written the law to require all female policies to cover those items, but they knew they could reap $ by having the gov't require OB/GYN coverage on male policies, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:55:02 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's no where near that simple. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Getting rid of Obamacare wouldn't be hard. Just send everyone cancellation notices and throw away all the paperwork concerning the law. People have to get new plans. Oh well. It's no where near that simple. I'm sure it won't be, since everything has to be difficult nowadays. Actually repealing it will be the hardest part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:01:25 AM EDT
[#11]
Obamacare was a sellout to the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital industries. And Obama himself is a wimpy tool of Wall Street.
Single payer would have been a better system. But I give up. Seeing that the fix was in, I invested in a basket of pharmaceutical stocks. And I've made out handsomely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:05:13 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 3% tax upon the seller of a home - crazy.  ...along with every other tax increase due to this fucked up law |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:10:55 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's no where near that simple. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Getting rid of Obamacare wouldn't be hard. Just send everyone cancellation notices and throw away all the paperwork concerning the law. People have to get new plans. Oh well. It's no where near that simple. Then please enlighten us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:12:03 AM EDT
[#14]
Millions of poor people will be forced to spend money on unsubsidized health insurance creating a nightmare.
Democrats will put in a bill to fix it. Rep will vote against it. Rep will be blamed for everything. Rep will vote for a bill to repeal obamacare. Dems will vote against it. Rep will be blamed for everything. Taxpayers will be punished either way. I don't think the case will win in court though, sounds like intent is what wins it. Except when it comes to 2a. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:13:02 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 3% tax upon the seller of a home - crazy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/04/02/there-is-no-obamacare-tax-on-most-home-sales-really/ But I still despise Obamacare |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:14:13 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing. The Senate will put a "fix" in a must-pass bill, and the Republicans will cave. /thtread Don't forget about the friends the prez has on the supreme court. 
gd |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:18:15 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then please enlighten us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Getting rid of Obamacare wouldn't be hard. Just send everyone cancellation notices and throw away all the paperwork concerning the law. People have to get new plans. Oh well. It's no where near that simple. Then please enlighten us. what do you do with people in process of undergoing treatment? kill em off? cover them - how? with what? how do you deal with people who paid for insurance out of pocket? cancel them? how do you handle overlap? how do you deal with people that paid but aren't really covered? Fuck them and their money? what about the money states spent? what about money that corporations spent? yeah, real simple. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:19:56 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Getting rid of Obamacare wouldn't be hard. Just send everyone cancellation notices and throw away all the paperwork concerning the law. People have to get new plans. Oh well. If policies can be cancelled, so can the ACA. IT's no 3rd rail like SS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:20:17 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obamacare was a sellout to the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital industries. And Obama himself is a wimpy tool of Wall Street. Single payer would have been a better system. But I give up. Seeing that the fix was in, I invested in a basket of pharmaceutical stocks. And I've made out handsomely. single payer is not the answer and never will be. single payer leads to rationing pure and simple as the only way to contain costs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:20:17 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is exactly what will happen. I think Obamacare is terrible, but hoping that it is somehow cancelled in one fell swoop rather than carefully unwound is like hoping for SHTF because you think it will be fun. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nothing. The Senate will put a "fix" in a must-pass bill, and the Republicans will cave. /thtread This is exactly what will happen. I think Obamacare is terrible, but hoping that it is somehow cancelled in one fell swoop rather than carefully unwound is like hoping for SHTF because you think it will be fun. If the impossible(and ideal situation) should happen and it gets thrown out, the administration should be held personally responsible for the aftermath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:22:09 AM EDT
[#21]
End result will be single-payer as planned.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:23:03 AM EDT
[#22]
Single payer will be rammed through in it's place and they will half to pass the bill before we find out what's in it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:23:12 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
ETA - or are insurers even going to bother? Are people who got their cheap plans canceled and were forced onto much more expensive plans going to be stuck paying more? What happens when people who were forced to buy health insurance let their policies lapse? Costs on expensive new plans go up again? Or does everyone just stand fast bracing for the next try at socialized medicine waiting to see which hoops they'll have to jump through again? Bridge burned, but they'd adapt to what the customers want eventually. I don't want to be covered for transgender operations or pregnancy stuff and would find an insurer that doesn't make me pay for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:25:06 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
single payer is not the answer and never will be. single payer leads to rationing pure and simple as the only way to contain costs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Obamacare was a sellout to the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital industries. And Obama himself is a wimpy tool of Wall Street. Single payer would have been a better system. But I give up. Seeing that the fix was in, I invested in a basket of pharmaceutical stocks. And I've made out handsomely. single payer is not the answer and never will be. single payer leads to rationing pure and simple as the only way to contain costs. Single payer is a bad answer, but all systems have rationing. It's just a matter of how the rations are controlled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:25:50 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
End result will be single-payer as planned. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I really don't think it was planned because it will cost the Dems a lot and Barry wouldn't have tied his name to something that he knew would fail. It's merely Democrat incompetence at its finest. The end result will be single payer. I hear people today bitch about 0bama, what a cluster fuck, and their conclusion, "they should just make it FREE like we thought it was". More government control fucked it up, so the answer is TOTAL government control. Americans must be getting dumber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:27:30 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then please enlighten us. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Getting rid of Obamacare wouldn't be hard. Just send everyone cancellation notices and throw away all the paperwork concerning the law. People have to get new plans. Oh well. It's no where near that simple. Then please enlighten us. Let's just look at the people who had their cheap plans canceled and were forced to buy new plans. That wasn't simply a matter of the insurance company switch from one plan to another. The insurers had to make major changes to their business offerings, changes to their processing systems, changes to the price structures, re-training employees, restructuring their compliance systems and record keeping systems and retention, developing new forms and porting their systems to the exchanges which were created. So how do they go back? Just say, ok we'll start the new plans back up again? It's not that simple. These insurance companies basically had to restructure everything that they sell, how they bill, how they keep records, how they comply, how they train their employees, how they communicate with their customers, how they approve claims, which types of claims they can, can't and must approve. Go back isn't just like flipping a switch. It would be an enormous, costly effort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:28:23 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
End result will be single-payer as planned. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I'm thinking it will be a single payer/private mix. Everyone pays for single payer but you can supplement it with private insurance. The bulk of providers will then only accept private insurance, and the lines for single payer care will be long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:29:36 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obamacare was a sellout to the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital industries. And Obama himself is a wimpy tool of Wall Street. Single payer would have been a better system. But I give up. Seeing that the fix was in, I invested in a basket of pharmaceutical stocks. And I've made out handsomely. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:33:46 AM EDT
[#29]
I'm sensing a bunch of newly minted Obama Care recipients here.
Bring the "pain", better it's gone sooner than later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:34:41 AM EDT
[#30]
And of course, the bottom line is money...
What happens to the subsidy money that people forced to buy plans were expecting? That obviously won't keep coming. So those plans will lapse, which means less money flowing into the insurance companies coffers. So how do the insurance companies compensate for the lass of revenue? Across the board price increases? Will that work, or will that force more people out of insurance policies that were already too costly? What about the money that insurers, hospitals and doctors received as subsides to pay for the costs of complying with the law? There obviously won't be any subsides to undo compliance and adapt to the lack of the law. So what, do they pay for that out of pocket? What happens to those costs? Are they passed on to the consumer, driving up health care costs yet again? Will there be layoffs? Will businesses go under? This could, very conceivably bring about a catastrophe in our health care industry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:35:21 AM EDT
[#31]
It would be nice if people could buy the insurance coverage they want and/or need instead of being forced to buy shit they don't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:36:31 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608023440687694139&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0 I'm sensing a bunch of newly minted Obama Care recipients here. Bring the "pain", better it's gone sooner than later. For the record, I have health insurance through my employer. But, this is why it was so important to stop Obamacare from being implemented. The cure can very well be just as bad, if not worse than the disease. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:36:49 AM EDT
[#33]
How did the country function before obamacare?
That is the answer. There will be teeth nashing for the children that lose insurance, but within a year of repeal(or whatever), it will be forgotten. edit: it will be killed. One of two serious suits in court now will kill it within the next year. the two suits are origination and exhanges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:37:51 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Obamacare was a sellout to the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital industries. And Obama himself is a wimpy tool of Wall Street. Single payer would have been a better system. But I give up. Seeing that the fix was in, I invested in a basket of pharmaceutical stocks. And I've made out handsomely. The dude has self identified as a full on socialist in other threads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:39:31 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For the record, I have health insurance through my employer. But, this is why it was so important to stop Obamacare from being implemented. The cure can very well be just as bad, if not worse than the disease. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608023440687694139&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0 I'm sensing a bunch of newly minted Obama Care recipients here.
Bring the "pain", better it's gone sooner than later. For the record, I have health insurance through my employer. But, this is why it was so important to stop Obamacare from being implemented. The cure can very well be just as bad, if not worse than the disease. Meh, "cures" for bad things often are. Sorry, no easy way out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:40:07 AM EDT
[#36]
We're moving into uncharted territory. No one knows exactly what will happen. Other than it will be a cluster of epic proportions. I could see a lot of people suddenly without insurance and no where else to go, at least for a while.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:47:24 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's just look at the people who had their cheap plans canceled and were forced to buy new plans. That wasn't simply a matter of the insurance company switch from one plan to another. The insurers had to make major changes to their business offerings, changes to their processing systems, changes to the price structures, re-training employees, restructuring their compliance systems and record keeping systems and retention, developing new forms and porting their systems to the exchanges which were created. So how do they go back? Just say, ok we'll start the new plans back up again? It's not that simple. These insurance companies basically had to restructure everything that they sell, how they bill, how they keep records, how they comply, how they train their employees, how they communicate with their customers, how they approve claims, which types of claims they can, can't and must approve. Go back isn't just like flipping a switch. It would be an enormous, costly effort. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Getting rid of Obamacare wouldn't be hard. Just send everyone cancellation notices and throw away all the paperwork concerning the law. People have to get new plans. Oh well. It's no where near that simple. Then please enlighten us. Let's just look at the people who had their cheap plans canceled and were forced to buy new plans. That wasn't simply a matter of the insurance company switch from one plan to another. The insurers had to make major changes to their business offerings, changes to their processing systems, changes to the price structures, re-training employees, restructuring their compliance systems and record keeping systems and retention, developing new forms and porting their systems to the exchanges which were created. So how do they go back? Just say, ok we'll start the new plans back up again? It's not that simple. These insurance companies basically had to restructure everything that they sell, how they bill, how they keep records, how they comply, how they train their employees, how they communicate with their customers, how they approve claims, which types of claims they can, can't and must approve. Go back isn't just like flipping a switch. It would be an enormous, costly effort. Indeed. It will be a giant headache for insurance companies. Guess they would have been better off vigorously opposing Obungocare instead of supporting it in the first place, thinking that they'd just be rolling in the dough from all the new mandated customers and government subsidies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:48:15 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Single payer is a bad answer, but all systems have rationing. It's just a matter of how the rations are controlled. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Obamacare was a sellout to the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital industries. And Obama himself is a wimpy tool of Wall Street. Single payer would have been a better system. But I give up. Seeing that the fix was in, I invested in a basket of pharmaceutical stocks. And I've made out handsomely. single payer is not the answer and never will be. single payer leads to rationing pure and simple as the only way to contain costs. Single payer is a bad answer, but all systems have rationing. It's just a matter of how the rations are controlled. No, single payer eliminates competition and options. There's no incentive to be competitive or innovative. Obamacare is designed to force us ino that style of system, and things will get worse, not better. The solution was really simple: 1) make insurance portable 2) allow shopping across state lines 3) limit liability 4) prove assistance to the 30 million that are without insurance (the number is larger now under Obamacare) those 4 things would have effectively solved the so-called problem. as far as single payer, lets look at Canada: life threatening stuff is handled very well however - need rotator-cuff surgery - how about next year? you'll lose some function, but that's ok because it isn't life threatening. Got arthritis? well as long as the one medicine we cover is good for you, you're ok. however if it isn't then you foot the bill - providing you can get it. I can go on, but there's a reason many Canadians come to the U.S. for elective procedures.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:48:58 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 3% tax upon the seller of a home - crazy. death panels, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:49:07 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How did the country function before obamacare? That is the answer. There will be teeth nashing for the children that lose insurance, but within a year of repeal(or whatever), it will be forgotten. edit: it will be killed. One of two serious suits in court now will kill it within the next year. the two suits are origination and exhanges. Let's look at this way. Say the government said you have to install an air filtration system in your house so that all air in your house is filtered through the system to prevent all the CO2 that is exhaled by people in your hose from leaving your home and contributing to global warming. And it has to be one of the government approved CO2 scrubbers and it has to be installed by a certified CO2 installer and it has to be inspected by a government inspector to ensure that it is functioning properly and is tamper proof to keep you from disabling or removing it. So the law goes in to effect, and you have your CO2 scrubber installed because the government was going to foreclose on your home and evict you if you did not comply. Then, a year later, the courts decide that the law in unconstitutional after all and you don't have to have the scrubber in your home. Now what? Now you're stuck with a government mandated device in your house, that you never wanted or asked for, sucking up your electricity to function. But how do you just go back to the way it was? You can't rip the thing out, it was built to be tamper proof and prevent you from removing it. Do you pay, out of YOUR pocket to have the certified uninstaller come out and remove your tamper proof CO2 scrubber? Or do you just leave it there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:49:35 AM EDT
[#41]
single payer leads to rationing pure and simple as the only way to contain costs. And you don't think that insurance companies "ration" care now? Rationing is inevitable when the demand for a service exceeds the available resources. Normally, in Adam Smith-style economics, this "rationing" is taken care by price. Prices are bid up until the demand is in balance with the supply. If applied to medical care, that would mean that only the rich would get all the care that they need. As a society, we've reached a consensus that a person's wealth should not be the determinant of whether he gets lifesaving treatment. So we have insurance (public or private) to spread the cost. But the resources are still not unlimited. Either private insurance employees or government officials are going to preside over the "rationing." At least the government officials are politically accountable; the private insurance employees are not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:49:37 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing. The Senate will put a "fix" in a must-pass bill, and the Republicans will cave. /thtread This, Boner may even cry again What will happen is the feds with force the states to set up their own exchanges, they will do this by withholding funds of some type until they set up their own system to the federal standards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:50:05 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 3% tax upon the seller of a home - crazy. Not entirely, and I had to look it up. Snopes had a decent description and they call it complicated http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:50:20 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed. It will be a giant headache for insurance companies. Guess they would have been better off vigorously opposing Obungocare instead of supporting it in the first place, thinking that they'd just be rolling in the dough from all the new mandated customers and government subsidies. not exactly how it happened - they were basically threatened with go along or we will nationalize insurance, and kill you off with caps on your profits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:51:19 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Indeed. It will be a giant headache for insurance companies. Guess they would have been better off vigorously opposing Obungocare instead of supporting it in the first place, thinking that they'd just be rolling in the dough from all the new mandated customers and government subsidies. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's no where near that simple. Then please enlighten us. Let's just look at the people who had their cheap plans canceled and were forced to buy new plans. That wasn't simply a matter of the insurance company switch from one plan to another. The insurers had to make major changes to their business offerings, changes to their processing systems, changes to the price structures, re-training employees, restructuring their compliance systems and record keeping systems and retention, developing new forms and porting their systems to the exchanges which were created. So how do they go back? Just say, ok we'll start the new plans back up again? It's not that simple. These insurance companies basically had to restructure everything that they sell, how they bill, how they keep records, how they comply, how they train their employees, how they communicate with their customers, how they approve claims, which types of claims they can, can't and must approve. Go back isn't just like flipping a switch. It would be an enormous, costly effort. Indeed. It will be a giant headache for insurance companies. Guess they would have been better off vigorously opposing Obungocare instead of supporting it in the first place, thinking that they'd just be rolling in the dough from all the new mandated customers and government subsidies. Businesses hold all the cards. They don't eat their headaches, they pass them on to their customers. Government mandated safety compliance? Raise prices to cover the extra costs. Government mandated record keeping requirements? Raise prices to cover the extra costs. Government imposed taxes? Raise prices to cover the extra costs. The consumer always loses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:54:57 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you don't think that insurance companies "ration" care now? Rationing is inevitable when the demand for a service exceeds the available resources. Normally, in Adam Smith-style economics, this "rationing" is taken care by price. Prices are bid up until the demand is in balance with the supply. If applied to medical care, that would mean that only the rich would get all the care that they need. As a society, we've reached a consensus that a person's wealth should not be the determinant of whether he gets lifesaving treatment. So we have insurance (public or private) to spread the cost. But the resources are still not unlimited. Either private insurance employees or government officials are going to preside over the "rationing." At least the government officials are politically accountable; the private insurance employees are not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
single payer leads to rationing pure and simple as the only way to contain costs. And you don't think that insurance companies "ration" care now? Rationing is inevitable when the demand for a service exceeds the available resources. Normally, in Adam Smith-style economics, this "rationing" is taken care by price. Prices are bid up until the demand is in balance with the supply. If applied to medical care, that would mean that only the rich would get all the care that they need. As a society, we've reached a consensus that a person's wealth should not be the determinant of whether he gets lifesaving treatment. So we have insurance (public or private) to spread the cost. But the resources are still not unlimited. Either private insurance employees or government officials are going to preside over the "rationing." At least the government officials are politically accountable; the private insurance employees are not. sure, to a point - I'm free to shop for the best plan that gives me what I want. this limits their rationing. The government officials are not accountable. And will never be. the beauty of having thousands of rules and regulations is that nobody can or will be held accountable for enforcing the rules? The fixes always involve MORE rules, not the removal of rules. you're deluded if you believe that there would be any accountability. private corporations are held accountable by shareholders and by people voting with their wallets - this is a stricter level of accountability than any politician or political hack will ever face. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:58:22 AM EDT
[#47]
Even Canadian-style "single payer" is a half measure. We should go to a full British-style National Health Service, in which doctors are government employees and hospitals are government-owned institutions. (Of course, there are some doctors and clinics that operate privately, in parallel with the public system. You can go to a private doctor if you can afford it, or have private insurance to cover it.)
Health care is a public right, just like clean air and water, and the minimum food to keep people alive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 11:59:19 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, single payer eliminates competition and options. There's no incentive to be competitive or innovative. Obamacare is designed to force us ino that style of system, and things will get worse, not better. The solution was really simple: 1) make insurance portable 2) allow shopping across state lines 3) limit liability 4) prove assistance to the 30 million that are without insurance (the number is larger now under Obamacare) those 4 things would have effectively solved the so-called problem. as far as single payer, lets look at Canada: life threatening stuff is handled very well however - need rotator-cuff surgery - how about next year? you'll lose some function, but that's ok because it isn't life threatening. Got arthritis? well as long as the one medicine we cover is good for you, you're ok. however if it isn't then you foot the bill - providing you can get it. I can go on, but there's a reason many Canadians come to the U.S. for elective procedures.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Obamacare was a sellout to the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital industries. And Obama himself is a wimpy tool of Wall Street. Single payer would have been a better system. But I give up. Seeing that the fix was in, I invested in a basket of pharmaceutical stocks. And I've made out handsomely. single payer is not the answer and never will be. single payer leads to rationing pure and simple as the only way to contain costs. Single payer is a bad answer, but all systems have rationing. It's just a matter of how the rations are controlled. No, single payer eliminates competition and options. There's no incentive to be competitive or innovative. Obamacare is designed to force us ino that style of system, and things will get worse, not better. The solution was really simple: 1) make insurance portable 2) allow shopping across state lines 3) limit liability 4) prove assistance to the 30 million that are without insurance (the number is larger now under Obamacare) those 4 things would have effectively solved the so-called problem. as far as single payer, lets look at Canada: life threatening stuff is handled very well however - need rotator-cuff surgery - how about next year? you'll lose some function, but that's ok because it isn't life threatening. Got arthritis? well as long as the one medicine we cover is good for you, you're ok. however if it isn't then you foot the bill - providing you can get it. I can go on, but there's a reason many Canadians come to the U.S. for elective procedures.... What you and I are saying is not mutually exclusive. This is a good pace to start http://wps.prenhall.com/bp_casefair_econf_7e/30/7932/2030637.cw/index.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 12:04:20 PM EDT
[#49]
If it's thrown out, I will say "Yay" quite loudly.
Immediately after, our rulers, er "congressmen" will start working on another version of it. Maybe the real push for single payer will start up instead of single payer lite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 12:08:41 PM EDT
[#50]
Canceling the subsidy would be an unmitigated disaster that will result in single payer more than any other action. Without ending the mandate people that can't afford the plan they have to buy without the subsidy. You end up with millions that can't afford the insurance (not even healthcare) they have to buy, and when push comes to shove political parties don't matter when your wallet is empty and the bills come due.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
