Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Sep 30, 2013.
Because the rate of increase in cost unchecked was unsustainable.
Will do Bill. And you keep staying angry about how terrible everything is for you.
something some can't comprehend....is that sticking with a 'perceived' best is the enemy of even better.
BTW--the current healthcare system is acceptable for the seller(insurance companies and corporate hospitals) and not for a large number of people needing healthcare
the conflict of interest of the healthcare industry
--healthcare is about providing healthcare to the consumer
--industry/business is about profits for the shareholders.
since it is business people calling the shots the profits go up and healthcare is compromised with many patients suffering and dying do to denial of service by insurance companies and corporate healthcare in general.
remove the middleman(insurance companies) and other healthcare businesses would have increased profit and patients receive better care for which they are paying.
The middleman is being replaced, not removed. Thankfully, the government is a model of efficiency and cost savings.
many other countries don't have this problem when it comes to health care
it will screw up your provision of medical care. Why is that so hard to understand??!!!
Let's face it; we have a two-tiered system.
For people like you and me, who are well insured, we actually experience the #1 healthcare in the world. Armed with my current insurance, there is not another country in the world were I would prefer to be hospitalized.
On the other hand, if you're uninsured in the United States, the healthcare is spotty at best. While you may get world-class healthcare for an acute or emergency issue, if you've got chronic disease (i.e., diabetes), you're going to receive arguably the worst care in the industrialized world.
But, I'm okay with that. I work my butt off for my family to get the best healthcare in the world and I should be rewarded accordingly.
Obama and his ilk will not stop until we "equality" in healthcare. Ultimately, the only way they'll accomplish this is by reducing our superior healthcare down to the level of the poorest Americans.
Margaret Thatcher did a much better job of explaining the quest of the Left:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KHA7YXsu110" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
How so? I've got the same insurance, see the same GP, and the same network of specialists I've always had. My health care hasn't been screwed up; it hasn't changed at all. Like I said before, maybe you guys just have a bad plan, or work for bad company...
Have you ever lived in Sweden? I have.
Trust me, for those of us with good health insurance, the U.S. system is significantly better than Sweden's universal healthcare system.
Like many living in Sweden, when we were there, we opted for private insurance (subsidized by my employer) because it bought us the type healthcare access we were used to in the States.
Here's a good article that explains the growing trend of private health insurance in Sweden:
By the way, when we lived the UK, we also opted to purchase private health insurance. Unlike Sweden where quick access was the biggest problem, in the UK the NHS clinics were just scary and nasty. I didn't know anyone with any means that didn't buy private health insurance in the UK.
Once fully implemented, you will not have the same quick access to specialists (and even potentially your GP) that you're used to.
Just think about it; if we suddenly add 50 million people who previously didn't have easy access to specialists (or GPs), how would you expect your access not to be affected?
ACA is a good deal for the 50 million uninsured. It's a horrible deal for people who are currently well insured.
Here's the liberal defense of the ACA as I see it here on the eve of implimentation:
--If something bad happens they say it's because the ACA is still rolling out and they can't see the future, but just wait and everything will work its self out for the better in the end.
--If something good happens they it was meant to all along and even though the ACA is still rolling out and they can't see the future they know that good thing will continue unaffected.
nothing is terrible for me-I have retired at 61 with a 6 figure income
I am just tired of you libs thinking you deserve something of what I worked hard for and you libs thinking you have the right to decide how much of it I need
then take you happy ass there to live
As you have already figured out, these detailed facts mean nothing to those who want you to subsidise them and ultimately have a single payor system.
So, we accelerate the costs for all but the 30 M? With the Obama economy and people moving from full to part time and food stamps becoming the currency of choice for 16% of the population, costs were coming down anyway.
Yes, because so many people are saying "I'm too poor for this procedure right now, I guess I'll just die instead."
People are willing to incur absolutely any cost to stay alive, regardless of their ability to pay it. How is a nearly completely inelastic demand conducive to prices decreasing?
so Ben it seems like you favor the death panels
That's one potential solution given that we so disproportionately spend on end of life care, but it's not my preferred one.
With a completely inelastic demand, you need to remove the consumer from either the purchase or the pricing side of the equation if you want to control costs. Removing them from the pricing side by letting those who actually pay for the costs those consumers incur have a bigger say in negotiating those costs is probably the less intrusive one, and that means having some entity with a lot more power to set price, either through extremely large purchasing groups such that they can essentially demand the price on behalf of a group of customers so large that the provider absolutely has to have them, or through the force of law.
Whether that means massive insurer consolidations with a mandate to purchase, or whether it means some element of price controls, or whether it means single payer, all would work towards addressing that issue. To be honest I'm not sure which is the best solution.
Why don't you ask the Stryker orthopedic reps? They will tell you that when the economy tanked, less knees, hips, shoulders were replaced. Not as many ski accidents, too. Those with significant out of pocket costs, put it off. People lost insurance. Medicare recipients still had their procedures done but those with large co pays put it off.
I would guess the same happened to dermatologists with botox. And plastic surgeons with fake boobs., butts, lips, tummy tucks, eye lids.
In Obama's world, all but the favored suffer.