On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:23:26 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
So what you are proud this was Hillary's dream?
By your admission the people were not helped by this, but the insurance companies became wealthier and you're saying that's a
Here is where I don't follow you. You say millions of people would be without jobs because of the certain collapse of the
health insurance industry if there was a single-payer system instituted, but you don't say how many new government jobs will
be needed to keep the wheels turning. If history is any indicator there will be many more government workers required to
provide the same level of service that the private health care insurance companies provide with their "millions" of workers.
No one is forced to buy insurance from any corporation, at least not until the anointed one made his proclamation saying you
can't keep your insurance or your doctor. Why couldn't one be self insured?
We have heard testimony of how health care has suffered in those countries as a result.
I don't think so at least in the main. Your statement implies that
they knew what ailed them and they had pre-existing conditions that
were the cause of their problems and they simply didn't do anything
about it. Try a different explanation: You were probably complaining
about the wait time and this "blame the victim" response was the
easiest way out especially as the lackeys you spoke to personally
probably can't do anything.
It's very hard to accurately assess blame: incompetent medical
personell, stupid and ignorant population, poor education system,
tax-adverse republicans <heh, heh>, too high expectations fostered by
a excitement-based media, money-grubbing touchie-feelies trying to
effect social change on the back of medicine, overpaid and underworked
academics; oh yeah, and as an afterthought: rapacious greedy
capitalists -- are all part of the problem.
And you don't "go to" Obamacare." It's simply a financing means to
spread the costs of moderate income people over their entire group.
Moderate income because the better off are already insured at work,
the oldies are taken care of by Medicare, the really poor by Medicaid,
and the veterans by the VA. That leaves the young especially those in
starter jobs and those who think they'll never be ill. What better
group to make pay for their own health care on a group basis. So the
care of a diabetic female working a minimum wage job will be paid by
all those other non-diabetic minimum wage workers. IOW it's not
insurance; it's taxation of one group of near-poor to pay for the
health care of another (hopefully smaller) group of near-poor.
Oh yeah, and just what experience do you have in diagnosing medical
conditions? Sorry, that was a bit harsh, but you should realize that
some conditions don't result in screaming in pain, excessive bleeding,
vomiting, uncontrollable diarhea, inability to breathe, etc. In fact
such people would normally be seen first so you wouldn't even notice
As to your "check-up" comment, do you realize that an ER visit will be
billed at a minimum of about $1200. That's what the bloodsuckers will
try and extract from you if you have no insurance. Speaking
personally, under my super-duper insurance policy an ER visit still
costs me $200 and of the balance the insurance company pays about $300
and the rest is "discount". Very expensive "check-up"!
Nonsense. An attempt to install a health care insurance system was
tried by Nixon IIRC.
Obama promised changes in the current system and the drafting was
largely led by the chairman of the appropriate committee in the house.
(I believe he's now the ambassador to somewhere.) But Obama was
heavily involved in poisoning the well and giving away large chunks of
the original proposals to the moneyed interests such as protecting the
pharmaceutical industry, the doctors, nurses, hospital workers, and
all sorts of overpaid parasites. Not to mention the oldies with
Medicare and the touchie-feelies and their clients with Medicaid. In
one particularly egregious example he agreed to nullify the
cost-sharing by the state (one of the fly-over group) for Medicaid if
the senators of that state would vote for his bill. Oh, no Obama was
in it up to his eyeballs.
Of course not, most other countries run a tax-based sytem which covers
everyone, hence no pretence at insurance.
But the insurers are actually a good thing and they do a reasonable
job of keeping the costs down by negotiating a dollar amount for each
procedure called "allowed costs". If you think it's bad now think what
would happen if everyone was able to charge what they'd like.
Neither person said this was a "good thing" nor was Muggles saying it
people were not "helped".
That might be a minor reason but I don't think our elected officials
are smart enough to reason that deeply.
Undoubtedly there would be workers required to manage any new system
however a lot of jobs would simply disappear. For example, you don't
need anybody to sell policies, nor to negotiate allowed costs. And we
already have many of the other people already in place in such
agencies as the Health Care Financing Administration dealing with such
programs as Medicare and Medicaid. More bits rolling through the
computers don't require more people.
I'll give you an example that could (if the giveaway wasn't supported
by certain senators) be changed to save millions. In the current
systems all of the procedures are coded by the provider and
reimbursement is based on the coding. You'd think this would be a no
brainer to have one code for Medicare (say) and apply it to the entire
panalopy of insurers. You'd be wrong. Most have different coding
systems usually constructed by outside companies and jealously guarded
by them. Just think of the extra work, not only at the insurance
company but at every provider in the country. My urologist (a one-man
show) has a coder employed just for this and she even has an
You know the answer to this! But I'll tell you anyway. Because the
cost of health care is so high (sometimes necesarily so) that only the
ultra-rich would be able to put up the money when something
catastrophic occurs. Do you have any idea how much long-term treatment
costs for one of those highly photogenic kids suffening from leukemia?
For the rest it would be bankruptcy and then the spreading of the
resulting uncollected costs over all of us.
We've also heard how satisfied most Canadians and British are with
Obamacare has cut that number in half. Everyone knew in advance that
as written it wouldn't cover everyone.
No it shouldn't be, and the Democrats with a few exceptions wanted
universal health care, but conservatives wouldn't go along. So the
Democrats compromised and despite that, they didn't get a single
Republican vote, and after Teddy Kennedy died, they could barely pass
it. But it passed 60 to 40 or 59 to 40, iirc, a big majority.
IIRC Hillarycare, which was the proposed program she and her staff
developed in 1994 would have provided universal care, but
conservatives didn't like that either. So Obamacare had a lot of
compromises, and it would have gotten many Republican votes in 1994,
and passed easily, but many sane Republicans have retired or even been
defeated by tea-party types, so not only did they not vote for
Obamacare, but they made the normal correction legislation, which
corrects problems a year or two after a program goes into effect and
unforeseen problems show up, unpassable.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.