Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you really think that liberals want totally free healthcare? Is that even possible? One way or another it is going to be paid for by us. The question is how to we go about paying for it? Do we pay through insurance companies who take part of what we pay and put it in their pocket for profit? Or do we pay for it through non-profit means where you have no middle man who needs to turn a profit for shareholders?
ANY private business needs to turn a profit RDD. Even if you were paying your doctor and the hosipital directly. They still need to make a profit. But that's the only way to eliminate the middle man. Even if all health care was funded through tax collection there's still a middle man; government.
Let me ask this question -
If someone goes to an ER at a hospital, they are not refused treatment, who should be paying for that?
The person that went to the ER.
If they have ins, the ins pays the lion share.
If not they can set up a payment plan.
The patient. Now answer my question.
Ummm.....What if they can't? hence why they don't have insurance to begin with.
Then you work something out with the hospital to pay for it over time if you have to.
Now answer my question.
Let me ask this question -
If someone goes to an ER at a hospital, they are not refused treatment, who should be paying for that?
The patient. Now answer my question.
Ummm.....What if they can't? hence why they don't have insurance to begin with.
Do you really think that liberals want totally free healthcare? Is that even possible? One way or another it is going to be paid for by us. The question is how to we go about paying for it? Do we pay through insurance companies who take part of what we pay and put it in their pocket for profit? Or do we pay for it through non-profit means where you have no middle man who needs to turn a profit for shareholders?
ANY private business needs to turn a profit RDD. Even if you were paying your doctor and the hosipital directly. They still need to make a profit. But that's the only way to eliminate the middle man. Even if all health care was funded through tax collection there's still a middle man; government.
LOL, If you eliminate the middle man that *needs* to turn a profit, you lower costs for everyone right off the bat. If government is the middle man, you still have administration costs, but you don't have the need to make multi-billion dollar profits for your shareholders.
So then would not seem prudent that the best cost cutting solution would be on that allows people to pay docotors and hospitals directly?
What did I not answer? How much should healthcare cost? I don't know how to give you an exact figure but I don't think it should be free for all if that's what you're getting at.
I mean how should it be funded? Through taxes or should everyone be responsible for the cost of their own medical needs?
That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.
So out with it libs. Is health care something you should pay directly for? Or is it something government should provide through taxes?
Have you ever hear the terms: You get what you pay for and nothing in life is free?
Nothing in life is free. Someone always pays for it. It may be great for some not having to pay for any health care, but trust me, someone IS paying for it. Not them of course and that is all they care about.
I laugh when we have strikes here and the sticking point is how much their copay will go up. Fine, please don't pay your copay and pay the entire cost of the bill. Works for me.
So whine about copays. Boohoo they go up. Copays are a fraction of the true cost of medical care and services.
I am SICK of the whining about health care. Pay for it.
Should government pay for your health care. In my opinion NO.
The patient. Now answer my question.
Ummm.....What if they can't? hence why they don't have insurance to begin with.
Right. They cant. BUT they still get the care the need. And that is why costs to the rest of us, who do pay, is skyrocketing.
Let me ask this question -
If someone goes to an ER at a hospital, they are not refused treatment, who should be paying for that?
The person that went to the ER.
If they have ins, the ins pays the lion share.
If not they can set up a payment plan.
What if they are flat broke or living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford the 100k+ treatment they just racked up?
ANY private business needs to turn a profit RDD. Even if you were paying your doctor and the hosipital directly. They still need to make a profit. But that's the only way to eliminate the middle man. Even if all health care was funded through tax collection there's still a middle man; government.
LOL, If you eliminate the middle man that *needs* to turn a profit, you lower costs for everyone right off the bat. If government is the middle man, you still have administration costs, but you don't have the need to make multi-billion dollar profits for your shareholders.
So then would not seem prudent that the best cost cutting solution would be on that allows people to pay docotors and hospitals directly?
What did I not answer? How much should healthcare cost? I don't know how to give you an exact figure but I don't think it should be free for all if that's what you're getting at.
I mean how should it be funded? Through taxes or should everyone be responsible for the cost of their own medical needs?
Sure, if we're talking purely about cost.
The person that went to the ER.
If they have ins, the ins pays the lion share.
If not they can set up a payment plan.
What if they are flat broke or living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford the 100k+ treatment they just racked up?
I know someone that pays a hopital $50 a month for hip replacement.
Stop whining, life aint fair, and no amount of you digging and digging for excuses will give the left a pass on taking more of my independence from me.
Let me ask this question -
If someone goes to an ER at a hospital, they are not refused treatment, who should be paying for that?
The person that went to the ER.
If they have ins, the ins pays the lion share.
If not they can set up a payment plan.
What if they are flat broke or living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford the 100k+ treatment they just racked up?
Ummm.....What if they can't? hence why they don't have insurance to begin with.
Right. They cant. BUT they still get the care the need. And that is why costs to the rest of us, who do pay, is skyrocketing.
Exactly. This is what they are not getting. We are already paying for all these people who don't have insurance but are still being treated at ER's and hospitals who can not turn them away. The problem is we are paying for ER costs which are DRASTICALLY higher and is an extremely inefficient way of paying for their care. It would be much more efficient to subsidize these peoples insurance so they can get preventative care and treat their ailments before they get out of control and end up costing us a lot more money when they visit the ER. In the end we are paying for people who aren't insured no matter what, it's just a question of how do we want to do it. Efficiently or inefficiently?
ANY private business needs to turn a profit RDD. Even if you were paying your doctor and the hosipital directly. They still need to make a profit. But that's the only way to eliminate the middle man. Even if all health care was funded through tax collection there's still a middle man; government.
LOL, If you eliminate the middle man that *needs* to turn a profit, you lower costs for everyone right off the bat. If government is the middle man, you still have administration costs, but you don't have the need to make multi-billion dollar profits for your shareholders.
So then would not seem prudent that the best cost cutting solution would be on that allows people to pay docotors and hospitals directly?
What did I not answer? How much should healthcare cost? I don't know how to give you an exact figure but I don't think it should be free for all if that's what you're getting at.
I mean how should it be funded? Through taxes or should everyone be responsible for the cost of their own medical needs?
Everyone should be responsible for their own costs, but if you can't afford it you shouldn't be turned away. Agree?
Right. They cant. BUT they still get the care the need. And that is why costs to the rest of us, who do pay, is skyrocketing.
Exactly. This is what they are not getting. We are already paying for all these people who don't have insurance but are still being treated at ER's and hospitals who can not turn them away. The problem is we are paying for ER costs which are DRASTICALLY higher and is an extremely inefficient way of paying for their care. It would be much more efficient to subsidize these peoples insurance so they can get preventative care and treat their ailments before they get out of control and end up costing us a lot more money when they visit the ER. In the end we are paying for people who aren't insured no matter what, it's just a question of how do we want to do it. Efficiently or inefficiently?
That's a great idea! but it needs a catchy name. hmmm
hmmm
How about;
Medicaid
Not catchy, but it has a certain ring to it that won't stick into the memories of some people.
Ummm.....What if they can't? hence why they don't have insurance to begin with.
Right. They cant. BUT they still get the care the need. And that is why costs to the rest of us, who do pay, is skyrocketing.
Exactly. This is what they are not getting. We are already paying for all these people who don't have insurance but are still being treated at ER's and hospitals who can not turn them away. The problem is we are paying for ER costs which are DRASTICALLY higher and is an extremely inefficient way of paying for their care. It would be much more efficient to subsidize these peoples insurance so they can get preventative care and treat their ailments before they get out of control and end up costing us a lot more money when they visit the ER.
In the end we are paying for people who aren't insured no matter what, it's just a question of how do we want to do it. Efficiently or inefficiently?
What if they are flat broke or living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford the 100k+ treatment they just racked up?
I know someone that pays a hopital $50 a month for hip replacement.
Stop whining, life aint fair, and no amount of you digging and digging for excuses will give the left a pass on taking more of my independence from me.
LOL, no one is taking your independence. LMAO!
Do you have insurance now? Would you not purchase insurance if it wasn't mandated?
Ummm.....What if they can't? hence why they don't have insurance to begin with.
Right. They cant. BUT they still get the care the need. And that is why costs to the rest of us, who do pay, is skyrocketing.
Exactly. This is what they are not getting. We are already paying for all these people who don't have insurance but are still being treated at ER's and hospitals who can not turn them away. The problem is we are paying for ER costs which are DRASTICALLY higher and is an extremely inefficient way of paying for their care. It would be much more efficient to subsidize these peoples insurance so they can get preventative care and treat their ailments before they get out of control and end up costing us a lot more money when they visit the ER.
In the end we are paying for people who aren't insured no matter what, it's just a question of how do we want to do it. Efficiently or inefficiently?
What if they are flat broke or living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford the 100k+ treatment they just racked up?
I know someone that pays a hopital $50 a month for hip replacement.
Stop whining, life aint fair, and no amount of you digging and digging for excuses will give the left a pass on taking more of my independence from me.
LOL, no one is taking your independence. LMAO!
Do you have insurance now? Would you not purchase insurance if it wasn't mandated?
Exactly. This is what they are not getting. We are already paying for all these people who don't have insurance but are still being treated at ER's and hospitals who can not turn them away. The problem is we are paying for ER costs which are DRASTICALLY higher and is an extremely inefficient way of paying for their care. It would be much more efficient to subsidize these peoples insurance so they can get preventative care and treat their ailments before they get out of control and end up costing us a lot more money when they visit the ER. In the end we are paying for people who aren't insured no matter what, it's just a question of how do we want to do it. Efficiently or inefficiently?
That's a great idea! but it needs a catchy name. hmmm
hmmm
How about;
Medicaid
Not catchy, but it has a certain ring to it that won't stick into the memories of some people.
Not exactly. These subsidies will allow people to purchase insurance from Private insurance companies that they get to choose. Exactly why this is the exact opposite of a government takeover.
Right. They cant. BUT they still get the care the need. And that is why costs to the rest of us, who do pay, is skyrocketing.
Exactly. This is what they are not getting. We are already paying for all these people who don't have insurance but are still being treated at ER's and hospitals who can not turn them away. The problem is we are paying for ER costs which are DRASTICALLY higher and is an extremely inefficient way of paying for their care. It would be much more efficient to subsidize these peoples insurance so they can get preventative care and treat their ailments before they get out of control and end up costing us a lot more money when they visit the ER.
In the end we are paying for people who aren't insured no matter what, it's just a question of how do we want to do it. Efficiently or inefficiently?
I understand the premise but why subsidize their insurance? Why give them an insurance plan at all? That just seems like an extra step to me. If they can't pay for it, they can't pay for it. The distinction between an inability to pay the actual cost of the ER or to pay insurance premiums is irrelevent. So if we do agree to just pay for these people it would seem pointless to have them be on insurance at all and we should just accept that a portion of our tax dollars are going to be used by government to pay the ER directly for those that can't pay for it.
