Interestingly the social democrats did nothing to address tort reform, which is one of the biggest indirect cause of the increases in medical cost. indirect cost are additional CYA test, cost of expensive new equipment for the CYA test, etc.
Working, yes. Working just fine? Debatable.
Rates keep going up even with everyone insured. Where is the big savings promised?
You are probably are more right than not on that comment. The housing bubble that started this latest mess in 08 was because people that could not afford houses were qualifying for loans to buy them since the government was guaranteeing the loans. And then the government had the nerve to blame the banks for the whole mess.
Had the government not guaranteed the loans this would not have happened. And yes the lenders did twist the qualification thresholds but the government expected them to do so, why else would they have guaranteed the loans. No need to guarantee loans for applicants that actually have the means to pay the money back!
Yeah, a far twenty third place behind the ads for tennis shoes, ambulance chasers, campaign ads, greeney ads, etc
The other necessary factor was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Without that, the banks would have had no way to dump their bogus paper on other banks. These same banks then bought bogus paper through the other door from other banks, never stopping to think that they were buying the same crap they were selling.
Yes, it was a government cluster-.... The banks did nothing illegal, only what the government wanted (in many cased demanded) them to do. Without Congress, both sides of the aisle, this would never have happened.
I don't know what you looked at Keith, but if they were indeed Medicare Supplement Policies they did not vary in benefits within a federally defined level (A,B,...).
I suspect you were looking at MedAdvantage plans or plans that had nothing to do with Medicare.
As I said, there *was* no health care back then. Why do you assume the founders would have not considered it as a possible right if todays level of care existed? I don't assume they would have, but it's possible.
They did the best they could for an agrarian low tech society. Some of their principles (reached after much compromising) are still applicable - others need adjustments for reality.
=======================================================================
Do you people even read up on a subject before you post or is the frothing at the mouth an instinctive reaction?
There are waivers and financial assistance provided in the law for those who can't afford the insurance. And if it stops them from using hospital emergency rooms as their family physicians we'll save more than the subsidies and waivers cost!
There are 21 new taxes imbedded in the ACA. They range from 10% surcharge on tanning salon patrons to over $2000 per year for some families.
Uh, they already did.
Well, not actually "require," but they made is so attractive that the vast majority participated.
It all started with the Community Re-Development Act under President Carter, but it really took off under the Clinton administration.
Giggle.
I wouldn't say "it works" in the UK. We frequently see reports on the ghastly consequences, so much that physicians actually prescribe water for their hospitalized patients so they won't die of dehydration!
Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health care providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients alive. If alive, they live to be treated another day.
In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor, nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report claimed that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from non-treatment or poor treatment.
Yep. One commentator opined that the other justices are playing checkers while Roberts is playing chess.
There are several cases scheduled for next term where his rationale in the ACA case will come back to bite the liberals. Chief among these cases are those having to do with voting rights and civil rights.
The bottom line on the ACA case, according to Roberts, is that a LEGISLATIVE solution is the proper path. That looses a massive political effort for the fall.
Hold my beer and watch this!
I have no need to stockpile boys, but thanks for the suggestion on girls.
If they thought health care was a right they would have said PROVIDE for the common welfare, NOT PROMOTE the general welfare.
"HeyBub" wrote in news:KJSdndF7UMowG23SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
Tanning is on a par with smoking. No feeling sorry for those who want a tan, and now need to pay a tax.
I don't know about families who would need to pay $2000 per year. Seems pretty cheap for insurance for a family.
Keith Nuttle wrote in news:jspf6t$9li$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:
I'm all for tort reform, ans also for quicker and more severe penalties for "misbehaving" physicians, hospitals, etc.
Keith Nuttle wrote in news:jsq4mg$sjg$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:
I believe I know enough English to conclude that the PPACA promotes welfare (in that sense).
Ed Pawlowski wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
It's a common refrain. In Holland too, they have had to adjust premiums upward. Probably savings come from the fact that there is no or far less cost caring for indigent. I wish I know how I could get healthcare costs to go down. On the other hand, several of my medications have gone generic, and they cost me far less now (and the cost to the insurance company is down too, probably).
"HeyBub" wrote in news:J96dnUMmfNdPFW3SnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
How many of those people chose palliative treatment rather than aggressive "life"-saving treatment?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.