So now with the EVIL Corporation Insurance Companies losing their supplemental billions from the gov

[forkup]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Again in the case of healthcare the facts don't support that theory. In most other industrialized countries, the government takes a way more active role in healthcare. This results is a cheaper and better healthcare system. Why, because the for profit motive is taken as much as possible out of the equation. Economics of healthcare: which countries are getting it right?

 

[Care4all]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

So, abolish the tax deduction for employers providing most of our insurance now....right?


And abolish the tax write offs we get for medical expenses, abolish military medical coverage, abolish MEDICARE and Medicaid, and VA health care and CHIP...children's health care, and abolish TRCARE, and federal grants and loans for medical schooling, abolish research and development monies, all federal and state employee insurance, etc etc etc that is all federal and state gov't funds.....

THEN AND ONLY THEN
Will you have your so called "Free Market"

Sounds good?

Totalitarian governance is base ignoring what the people want.

Hence...ObamaCare.


Prior to the full court press to which you have succumbed, costs were decreasing, and some 90% were happy with their healthcare.

Increases in healthcare expenditures:
2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/08/downgrading-american-medical-c/print
Also: Baldwin Wallace University



Here's what we found, poll by poll, in reverse chronological order:

• Quinnipiac University, Sept. 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 54 percent very satisfied, 34 percent somewhat.Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• Quinnipiac University, June 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 49 percent very satisfied, 36 somewhat satisfied.Total: 85 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2009. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 21 percent extremely satisfied, 37 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." 31 percent extremely satisfied, 41 percent very satisfied, 23 somewhat satisfied. Total: 95 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Overall satisfaction with my health (insurance) care plan." 23 percent extremely satisfied, 38 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 91 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2008. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 17 percent extremely satisfied, 36 percent very satisfied, 33 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 86 percent satisfaction.

If you average these eight scores, the total rate of satisfaction is 87 percent. In all but one poll, the satisfaction level was below Will's stated level of 95 percent.

One poll, taken five months before Obama was inaugurated, did come up with 95 percent satisfaction. But alone among these eight polls, that survey asked participants about the "quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." While we decided that the wording was close enough to merit inclusion on our list, the modest difference in satisfaction levels may stem from the way the question was phrased. Many people feel more warmly toward their doctors than they do toward their insurers.

So, while one poll with unique wording pegged satisfaction at 95 percent, the average of all relevant polls over a two-year period was eight points lower than what Will cited. However, Will is correct that the levels of satisfaction with one's own health insurance are consistently high. Indeed, they're extraordinarily high, when one considers how rarely surveys find such high levels of agreement among Americans. Since Will portrayed the larger point accurately, even while modestly overstating the number, we rate his comment Mostly True.

Will says that 95 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied with it


And, of course, the experience with ObamaCare has proven exactly what the Right predicted.

Nice distraction!

so, how about addressing my post...

in order to have this "free market" that you claim will solve all ills,

Are you willing to drop:

MEDICAID
MEDICARE
VA CARE
MILITARY CARE
TRICARE
CHIPS
Research and development grants
Medical student loans
Employer tax deductions for health care insurance
Individual tax deductions for insurance premiums
Individual tax deductions for medical expenses
Free child Vaccinations
Medical University grants
Sliding scale Health Care Clinics
Paying for the indigent care through emergency rooms
State employee Health Care
Federal Employee Health care

etc etc etc that is government funded so that we can have a FREE MARKET that will bring health care costs down?

YES or NO answer please....

How to judge healthcare:

life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
[Before Bolshevik....er, ObamaCare]

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Protected Blog › Log in


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf





BTW.....were you able to find any errors here:

1. The desire of many who support ObamaCare is to have others pay their healthcare insurance costs.

2. .....ObamaCare is not healthcare....it's healthcare insurance. Since 1986, everyone has had federally mandated healthcare.

3. Those in actual need of assistance to purchase healthcare insurance amounts to less than 0.05% of the population. There are many ways to solve their problem outside of destroying a very popular system: 85-90% of those within the system were happy with it.

4. ObamaCare has squandered enough money to give each of the above in need some $15,000 to purchase private healthcare insurance.

5. Rather than healthcare costs rising, healthcare costs were actully falling or leveling off.

6. Before ObamaCare, out of pocket expenses in the US were actually lower than in many nations with national insurance.

7. "Obama Promised Healthcare Premiums Would Fall $2,500 Per Family; They Have Climbed $4,865"
8. 'Bolshevik' is the accurate description, as ,nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917.

9. When you spend your own money on yourself you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost producing better products at better prices. Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost.

10 . Here's Obama stating he's for single payer:



None?

Excellent.

Jebus Christo

Are you some kind of BOT?

Answer the question PC....

You posted a link about letting the free market work to bring prices down...

WHY DID YOU POST on the free Market is the way to go,

IF YOU DO NOT believe in the Free Market?

It's a yes or no answer PC,

Do you agree with having a free market for Health Care OR NOT?

Do you agree to CUT all of those government subsidies and government monies paid in the health care market that interfere with the market place and the so called "Free Market"?

YES or NO?

PLEASE
DO NOT
Post another one of your links and stop this bull crap of yours, and answer the question as a NORMAL human being and not a preprogrammed robot....

IF you can not do that, PLEASE do not respond to me! thank you!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

So, abolish the tax deduction for employers providing most of our insurance now....right?


And abolish the tax write offs we get for medical expenses, abolish military medical coverage, abolish MEDICARE and Medicaid, and VA health care and CHIP...children's health care, and abolish TRCARE, and federal grants and loans for medical schooling, abolish research and development monies, all federal and state employee insurance, etc etc etc that is all federal and state gov't funds.....

THEN AND ONLY THEN
Will you have your so called "Free Market"

Sounds good?

Totalitarian governance is base ignoring what the people want.

Hence...ObamaCare.


Prior to the full court press to which you have succumbed, costs were decreasing, and some 90% were happy with their healthcare.

Increases in healthcare expenditures:
2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/08/downgrading-american-medical-c/print
Also: Baldwin Wallace University



Here's what we found, poll by poll, in reverse chronological order:

• Quinnipiac University, Sept. 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 54 percent very satisfied, 34 percent somewhat.Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• Quinnipiac University, June 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 49 percent very satisfied, 36 somewhat satisfied.Total: 85 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2009. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 21 percent extremely satisfied, 37 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." 31 percent extremely satisfied, 41 percent very satisfied, 23 somewhat satisfied. Total: 95 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Overall satisfaction with my health (insurance) care plan." 23 percent extremely satisfied, 38 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 91 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2008. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 17 percent extremely satisfied, 36 percent very satisfied, 33 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 86 percent satisfaction.

If you average these eight scores, the total rate of satisfaction is 87 percent. In all but one poll, the satisfaction level was below Will's stated level of 95 percent.

One poll, taken five months before Obama was inaugurated, did come up with 95 percent satisfaction. But alone among these eight polls, that survey asked participants about the "quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." While we decided that the wording was close enough to merit inclusion on our list, the modest difference in satisfaction levels may stem from the way the question was phrased. Many people feel more warmly toward their doctors than they do toward their insurers.

So, while one poll with unique wording pegged satisfaction at 95 percent, the average of all relevant polls over a two-year period was eight points lower than what Will cited. However, Will is correct that the levels of satisfaction with one's own health insurance are consistently high. Indeed, they're extraordinarily high, when one considers how rarely surveys find such high levels of agreement among Americans. Since Will portrayed the larger point accurately, even while modestly overstating the number, we rate his comment Mostly True.

Will says that 95 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied with it


And, of course, the experience with ObamaCare has proven exactly what the Right predicted.

Nice distraction!

so, how about addressing my post...

in order to have this "free market" that you claim will solve all ills,

Are you willing to drop:

MEDICAID
MEDICARE
VA CARE
MILITARY CARE
TRICARE
CHIPS
Research and development grants
Medical student loans
Employer tax deductions for health care insurance
Individual tax deductions for insurance premiums
Individual tax deductions for medical expenses
Free child Vaccinations
Medical University grants
Sliding scale Health Care Clinics
Paying for the indigent care through emergency rooms
State employee Health Care
Federal Employee Health care

etc etc etc that is government funded so that we can have a FREE MARKET that will bring health care costs down?

YES or NO answer please....

How to judge healthcare:

life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
[Before Bolshevik....er, ObamaCare]

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Protected Blog › Log in


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf





BTW.....were you able to find any errors here:

1. The desire of many who support ObamaCare is to have others pay their healthcare insurance costs.

2. .....ObamaCare is not healthcare....it's healthcare insurance. Since 1986, everyone has had federally mandated healthcare.

3. Those in actual need of assistance to purchase healthcare insurance amounts to less than 0.05% of the population. There are many ways to solve their problem outside of destroying a very popular system: 85-90% of those within the system were happy with it.

4. ObamaCare has squandered enough money to give each of the above in need some $15,000 to purchase private healthcare insurance.

5. Rather than healthcare costs rising, healthcare costs were actully falling or leveling off.

6. Before ObamaCare, out of pocket expenses in the US were actually lower than in many nations with national insurance.

7. "Obama Promised Healthcare Premiums Would Fall $2,500 Per Family; They Have Climbed $4,865"
8. 'Bolshevik' is the accurate description, as ,nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917.

9. When you spend your own money on yourself you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost producing better products at better prices. Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost.

10 . Here's Obama stating he's for single payer:



None?

Excellent.

Jebus Christo

Are you some kind of BOT?

Answer the question PC....

You posted a link about letting the free market work to bring prices down...

WHY DID YOU POST on the free Market is the way to go,

IF YOU DO NOT believe in the Free Market?

It's a yes or no answer PC,

Do you agree with having a free market for Health Care OR NOT?

Do you agree to CUT all of those government subsidies and government monies paid in the health care market that interfere with the market place and the so called "Free Market"?

YES or NO?

PLEASE
DO NOT
Post another one of your links and stop this bull crap of yours, and answer the question as a NORMAL human being and not a preprogrammed robot....

IF you can not do that, PLEASE do not respond to me! thank you!

Post another one of your links and stop this bull crap of yours, and answer the question as a NORMAL human being and not a preprogrammed robot....

Says the goose stepping, liberal kool aid drinking, useful idiotic, mind numbed, brain washed, pot smoking, liberal, lamestream media parrot...

 

[Muhammed]

Do your own homework.Put it this way, I have never lied to you before. You can check back as far as you want. Why would I ruin my reputation here as an impeccable source of truth now?

`
`
In other words, you make stuff up as you go along. Gotcha.

In other words, you are too lazy to educate yourself. No wonder you're a Moonbat.

 

[Winston]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J Mitchell, any simpleton that gives even an ounce of credence to something posted by someone with a Phd in Economics from George Mason, and working for the Cato Institute to boot, is the epitome of "foolish". The Economics department of George Mason is not an educational institution, it is a cult, and with the same grasp on reality as Scientology.

 

[Winston]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

So, abolish the tax deduction for employers providing most of our insurance now....right?


And abolish the tax write offs we get for medical expenses, abolish military medical coverage, abolish MEDICARE and Medicaid, and VA health care and CHIP...children's health care, and abolish TRCARE, and federal grants and loans for medical schooling, abolish research and development monies, all federal and state employee insurance, etc etc etc that is all federal and state gov't funds.....

THEN AND ONLY THEN
Will you have your so called "Free Market"

Sounds good?

Medicare and Medicaid is the real subsidy for private insurance companies. The government, via Medicare and Medicaid, takes care of the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. That leaves healthy working people for the private insurance market. Stupid is too kind of a word to define that action. And the real kicker, the government pays about the same per beneficiary to care for the elderly, the disabled, and the poor as private insurance companies charge to take care of healthy working Americans. We being SCAMMED.

 

[Windparadox]

Medicare and Medicaid is the real subsidy for private insurance companies. The government, via Medicare and Medicaid, takes care of the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. That leaves healthy working people for the private insurance market. Stupid is too kind of a word to define that action. And the real kicker, the government pays about the same per beneficiary to care for the elderly, the disabled, and the poor as private insurance companies charge to take care of healthy working Americans. We being SCAMMED.

`
I agree. We are getting scammed and screwed no matter which you choose. My preference for single payer come about after years of reading research, reports from both insurance and health care professionals and attending meetings. I'm not likely to change that based on what someone online says. If I err, it is on the side of people, not profits.

 

[PoliticalChic]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Again in the case of healthcare the facts don't support that theory. In most other industrialized countries, the government takes a way more active role in healthcare. This results is a cheaper and better healthcare system. Why, because the for profit motive is taken as much as possible out of the equation. Economics of healthcare: which countries are getting it right?

You couldn't be more wrong.
You might try to be...but you wouldn't be successful.


How to judge healthcare:

life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
[Before Bolshevik....er, ObamaCare]

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Protected Blog › Log in


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf





BTW.....were you able to find any errors here:

1. The desire of many who support ObamaCare is to have others pay their healthcare insurance costs.

2. .....ObamaCare is not healthcare....it's healthcare insurance. Since 1986, everyone has had federally mandated healthcare.

3. Those in actual need of assistance to purchase healthcare insurance amounts to less than 0.05% of the population. There are many ways to solve their problem outside of destroying a very popular system: 85-90% of those within the system were happy with it.

4. ObamaCare has squandered enough money to give each of the above in need some $15,000 to purchase private healthcare insurance.

5. Rather than healthcare costs rising, healthcare costs were actully falling or leveling off.

6. Before ObamaCare, out of pocket expenses in the US were actually lower than in many nations with national insurance.

7. "Obama Promised Healthcare Premiums Would Fall $2,500 Per Family; They Have Climbed $4,865"
8. 'Bolshevik' is the accurate description, as ,nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917.

9. When you spend your own money on yourself you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost producing better products at better prices. Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost.

10 . Here's Obama stating he's for single payer:



None?

Excellent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

So, abolish the tax deduction for employers providing most of our insurance now....right?


And abolish the tax write offs we get for medical expenses, abolish military medical coverage, abolish MEDICARE and Medicaid, and VA health care and CHIP...children's health care, and abolish TRCARE, and federal grants and loans for medical schooling, abolish research and development monies, all federal and state employee insurance, etc etc etc that is all federal and state gov't funds.....

THEN AND ONLY THEN
Will you have your so called "Free Market"

Sounds good?

Totalitarian governance is base ignoring what the people want.

Hence...ObamaCare.


Prior to the full court press to which you have succumbed, costs were decreasing, and some 90% were happy with their healthcare.

Increases in healthcare expenditures:
2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/08/downgrading-american-medical-c/print
Also: Baldwin Wallace University



Here's what we found, poll by poll, in reverse chronological order:

• Quinnipiac University, Sept. 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 54 percent very satisfied, 34 percent somewhat.Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• Quinnipiac University, June 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 49 percent very satisfied, 36 somewhat satisfied.Total: 85 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2009. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 21 percent extremely satisfied, 37 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." 31 percent extremely satisfied, 41 percent very satisfied, 23 somewhat satisfied. Total: 95 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Overall satisfaction with my health (insurance) care plan." 23 percent extremely satisfied, 38 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 91 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2008. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 17 percent extremely satisfied, 36 percent very satisfied, 33 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 86 percent satisfaction.

If you average these eight scores, the total rate of satisfaction is 87 percent. In all but one poll, the satisfaction level was below Will's stated level of 95 percent.

One poll, taken five months before Obama was inaugurated, did come up with 95 percent satisfaction. But alone among these eight polls, that survey asked participants about the "quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." While we decided that the wording was close enough to merit inclusion on our list, the modest difference in satisfaction levels may stem from the way the question was phrased. Many people feel more warmly toward their doctors than they do toward their insurers.

So, while one poll with unique wording pegged satisfaction at 95 percent, the average of all relevant polls over a two-year period was eight points lower than what Will cited. However, Will is correct that the levels of satisfaction with one's own health insurance are consistently high. Indeed, they're extraordinarily high, when one considers how rarely surveys find such high levels of agreement among Americans. Since Will portrayed the larger point accurately, even while modestly overstating the number, we rate his comment Mostly True.

Will says that 95 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied with it


And, of course, the experience with ObamaCare has proven exactly what the Right predicted.

Nice distraction!

so, how about addressing my post...

in order to have this "free market" that you claim will solve all ills,

Are you willing to drop:

MEDICAID
MEDICARE
VA CARE
MILITARY CARE
TRICARE
CHIPS
Research and development grants
Medical student loans
Employer tax deductions for health care insurance
Individual tax deductions for insurance premiums
Individual tax deductions for medical expenses
Free child Vaccinations
Medical University grants
Sliding scale Health Care Clinics
Paying for the indigent care through emergency rooms
State employee Health Care
Federal Employee Health care

etc etc etc that is government funded so that we can have a FREE MARKET that will bring health care costs down?

YES or NO answer please....

How to judge healthcare:

life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
[Before Bolshevik....er, ObamaCare]

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Protected Blog › Log in


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf





BTW.....were you able to find any errors here:

1. The desire of many who support ObamaCare is to have others pay their healthcare insurance costs.

2. .....ObamaCare is not healthcare....it's healthcare insurance. Since 1986, everyone has had federally mandated healthcare.

3. Those in actual need of assistance to purchase healthcare insurance amounts to less than 0.05% of the population. There are many ways to solve their problem outside of destroying a very popular system: 85-90% of those within the system were happy with it.

4. ObamaCare has squandered enough money to give each of the above in need some $15,000 to purchase private healthcare insurance.

5. Rather than healthcare costs rising, healthcare costs were actully falling or leveling off.

6. Before ObamaCare, out of pocket expenses in the US were actually lower than in many nations with national insurance.

7. "Obama Promised Healthcare Premiums Would Fall $2,500 Per Family; They Have Climbed $4,865"
8. 'Bolshevik' is the accurate description, as ,nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917.

9. When you spend your own money on yourself you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost producing better products at better prices. Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost.

10 . Here's Obama stating he's for single payer:



None?

Excellent.

Jebus Christo

Are you some kind of BOT?

Answer the question PC....

You posted a link about letting the free market work to bring prices down...

WHY DID YOU POST on the free Market is the way to go,

IF YOU DO NOT believe in the Free Market?

It's a yes or no answer PC,

Do you agree with having a free market for Health Care OR NOT?

Do you agree to CUT all of those government subsidies and government monies paid in the health care market that interfere with the market place and the so called "Free Market"?

YES or NO?

PLEASE
DO NOT
Post another one of your links and stop this bull crap of yours, and answer the question as a NORMAL human being and not a preprogrammed robot....

IF you can not do that, PLEASE do not respond to me! thank you!

You'll do anything to change the subject from the abject failure of ObamaCare, the policies of the abject failure as President, Hussein Obama, huh?



As you have found, everything I posted is 100% true, accurate and correct.

Don't you wish you could say that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J Mitchell, any simpleton that gives even an ounce of credence to something posted by someone with a Phd in Economics from George Mason, and working for the Cato Institute to boot, is the epitome of "foolish". The Economics department of George Mason is not an educational institution, it is a cult, and with the same grasp on reality as Scientology.

And yet you were unable to deny any of said post.

What does that say about you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Medicare and Medicaid is the real subsidy for private insurance companies. The government, via Medicare and Medicaid, takes care of the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. That leaves healthy working people for the private insurance market. Stupid is too kind of a word to define that action. And the real kicker, the government pays about the same per beneficiary to care for the elderly, the disabled, and the poor as private insurance companies charge to take care of healthy working Americans. We being SCAMMED.

`
I agree. We are getting scammed and screwed no matter which you choose. My preference for single payer come about after years of reading research, reports from both insurance and health care professionals and attending meetings. I'm not likely to change that based on what someone online says. If I err, it is on the side of people, not profits.

'research'???

Yet you weren't able to find any errors in the education that I provided for you.

Government school grad, huh?

 

[Winston]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J Mitchell, any simpleton that gives even an ounce of credence to something posted by someone with a Phd in Economics from George Mason, and working for the Cato Institute to boot, is the epitome of "foolish". The Economics department of George Mason is not an educational institution, it is a cult, and with the same grasp on reality as Scientology.

And yet you were unable to deny any of said post.

What does that say about you?

The idea that a "product" with virtually no elasticity somehow does have a measurable substitution effect is laughable on it's face and completely rebutted by fundamental BASIC economics. But honestly, that is far too advanced for a simpleton like you to even begin to understand.

 

[Winston]

Medicare and Medicaid is the real subsidy for private insurance companies. The government, via Medicare and Medicaid, takes care of the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. That leaves healthy working people for the private insurance market. Stupid is too kind of a word to define that action. And the real kicker, the government pays about the same per beneficiary to care for the elderly, the disabled, and the poor as private insurance companies charge to take care of healthy working Americans. We being SCAMMED.

`
I agree. We are getting scammed and screwed no matter which you choose. My preference for single payer come about after years of reading research, reports from both insurance and health care professionals and attending meetings. I'm not likely to change that based on what someone online says. If I err, it is on the side of people, not profits.

'research'???

Yet you weren't able to find any errors in the education that I provided for you.

Government school grad, huh?

One doesn't have to find "errors" in information that is not topical. For instance, you pointed out that health care expenditures have increased under Obamacare. Well DUH HUH, millions more Americans now have health insurance, of course the "expenditures" went up. Your inability to intuitively understand such critical concepts is indicative of your ignorance. Or that government health care was one of the first acts of the Bolsheviks. So what, Israel has single payer health care as well, what does that mean? Or that Obama is for single payer---so was Donald Trump.

Nope, you are nothing more than a legend in your own mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J Mitchell, any simpleton that gives even an ounce of credence to something posted by someone with a Phd in Economics from George Mason, and working for the Cato Institute to boot, is the epitome of "foolish". The Economics department of George Mason is not an educational institution, it is a cult, and with the same grasp on reality as Scientology.

And yet you were unable to deny any of said post.

What does that say about you?

The idea that a "product" with virtually no elasticity somehow does have a measurable substitution effect is laughable on it's face and completely rebutted by fundamental BASIC economics. But honestly, that is far too advanced for a simpleton like you to even begin to understand.

Still can't find any errors in my posts?

Excellent.

 

[Winston]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J Mitchell, any simpleton that gives even an ounce of credence to something posted by someone with a Phd in Economics from George Mason, and working for the Cato Institute to boot, is the epitome of "foolish". The Economics department of George Mason is not an educational institution, it is a cult, and with the same grasp on reality as Scientology.

And yet you were unable to deny any of said post.

What does that say about you?

The idea that a "product" with virtually no elasticity somehow does have a measurable substitution effect is laughable on it's face and completely rebutted by fundamental BASIC economics. But honestly, that is far too advanced for a simpleton like you to even begin to understand.

Still can't find any errors in my posts?

Excellent.

Before we can even begin to have an intelligent discussion you would have to demonstrate you understand simple Economic concepts like "elasticity" and "substitution effect". Otherwise, well I am just toying with a simpleton.

Tell me, does it really make sense to you that the government can take care of the elderly, the disabled, and the poor at the same cost per person as private health insurers collect for healthy working Americans?

 

[forkup]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Again in the case of healthcare the facts don't support that theory. In most other industrialized countries, the government takes a way more active role in healthcare. This results is a cheaper and better healthcare system. Why, because the for profit motive is taken as much as possible out of the equation. Economics of healthcare: which countries are getting it right?

You couldn't be more wrong.
You might try to be...but you wouldn't be successful.


How to judge healthcare:

life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
[Before Bolshevik....er, ObamaCare]

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Protected Blog › Log in


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf





BTW.....were you able to find any errors here:

1. The desire of many who support ObamaCare is to have others pay their healthcare insurance costs.

2. .....ObamaCare is not healthcare....it's healthcare insurance. Since 1986, everyone has had federally mandated healthcare.

3. Those in actual need of assistance to purchase healthcare insurance amounts to less than 0.05% of the population. There are many ways to solve their problem outside of destroying a very popular system: 85-90% of those within the system were happy with it.

4. ObamaCare has squandered enough money to give each of the above in need some $15,000 to purchase private healthcare insurance.

5. Rather than healthcare costs rising, healthcare costs were actully falling or leveling off.

6. Before ObamaCare, out of pocket expenses in the US were actually lower than in many nations with national insurance.

7. "Obama Promised Healthcare Premiums Would Fall $2,500 Per Family; They Have Climbed $4,865"
8. 'Bolshevik' is the accurate description, as ,nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917.

9. When you spend your own money on yourself you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost producing better products at better prices. Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost.

10 . Here's Obama stating he's for single payer:



None?

Excellent.

Wow you really do spout theory like a robot. Health Care Index by Country 2017 Mid-Year
This is an actual valuation of health care. The US is number 27. You are trying too explain away a very simple statistic by trying to make a case for the US being a more dangerous place to live. The simple fact is, in almost every way you measure people's health the US lags behind other developed nations. You are somehow trying too make a case that the free market gives better results, besides theories that simply aren't supported by facts you have nothing too support that claim. The problems of Obamacare are irrelevant since your premise is that it's the government interference part that makes it fail, while even with ACA the US still has way less government interference then other nations who yield better result. In short you can't establish cause and effect to support your theory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Again in the case of healthcare the facts don't support that theory. In most other industrialized countries, the government takes a way more active role in healthcare. This results is a cheaper and better healthcare system. Why, because the for profit motive is taken as much as possible out of the equation. Economics of healthcare: which countries are getting it right?

You couldn't be more wrong.
You might try to be...but you wouldn't be successful.


How to judge healthcare:

life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
[Before Bolshevik....er, ObamaCare]

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Protected Blog › Log in


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf





BTW.....were you able to find any errors here:

1. The desire of many who support ObamaCare is to have others pay their healthcare insurance costs.

2. .....ObamaCare is not healthcare....it's healthcare insurance. Since 1986, everyone has had federally mandated healthcare.

3. Those in actual need of assistance to purchase healthcare insurance amounts to less than 0.05% of the population. There are many ways to solve their problem outside of destroying a very popular system: 85-90% of those within the system were happy with it.

4. ObamaCare has squandered enough money to give each of the above in need some $15,000 to purchase private healthcare insurance.

5. Rather than healthcare costs rising, healthcare costs were actully falling or leveling off.

6. Before ObamaCare, out of pocket expenses in the US were actually lower than in many nations with national insurance.

7. "Obama Promised Healthcare Premiums Would Fall $2,500 Per Family; They Have Climbed $4,865"
8. 'Bolshevik' is the accurate description, as ,nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917.

9. When you spend your own money on yourself you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost producing better products at better prices. Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost.

10 . Here's Obama stating he's for single payer:



None?

Excellent.

Wow you really do spout theory like a robot. Health Care Index by Country 2017 Mid-Year
This is an actual valuation of health care. The US is number 27. You are trying too explain away a very simple statistic by trying to make a case for the US being a more dangerous place to live. The simple fact is, in almost every way you measure people's health the US lags behind other developed nations. You are somehow trying too make a case that the free market gives better results, besides theories that simply aren't supported by facts you have nothing too support that claim. The problems of Obamacare are irrelevant since your premise is that it's the government interference part that makes it fail, while even with ACA the US still has way less government interference then other nations who yield better result. In short you can't establish cause and effect to support your theory.

OK....OK....stop begging....

I'll be happy fill in yet one more of your lacunae....

WHO/UN

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General

The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.

WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses

theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf



After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.



Have you ever read a book?

Sooooo.....when did you graduate from government school?

 

[Winston]

`
`
I'm a major advocate of the single payer system.

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Again in the case of healthcare the facts don't support that theory. In most other industrialized countries, the government takes a way more active role in healthcare. This results is a cheaper and better healthcare system. Why, because the for profit motive is taken as much as possible out of the equation. Economics of healthcare: which countries are getting it right?

You couldn't be more wrong.
You might try to be...but you wouldn't be successful.


How to judge healthcare:

life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
[Before Bolshevik....er, ObamaCare]

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Protected Blog › Log in


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf





BTW.....were you able to find any errors here:

1. The desire of many who support ObamaCare is to have others pay their healthcare insurance costs.

2. .....ObamaCare is not healthcare....it's healthcare insurance. Since 1986, everyone has had federally mandated healthcare.

3. Those in actual need of assistance to purchase healthcare insurance amounts to less than 0.05% of the population. There are many ways to solve their problem outside of destroying a very popular system: 85-90% of those within the system were happy with it.

4. ObamaCare has squandered enough money to give each of the above in need some $15,000 to purchase private healthcare insurance.

5. Rather than healthcare costs rising, healthcare costs were actully falling or leveling off.

6. Before ObamaCare, out of pocket expenses in the US were actually lower than in many nations with national insurance.

7. "Obama Promised Healthcare Premiums Would Fall $2,500 Per Family; They Have Climbed $4,865"
8. 'Bolshevik' is the accurate description, as ,nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917.

9. When you spend your own money on yourself you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost producing better products at better prices. Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost.

10 . Here's Obama stating he's for single payer:



None?

Excellent.

Wow you really do spout theory like a robot. Health Care Index by Country 2017 Mid-Year
This is an actual valuation of health care. The US is number 27. You are trying too explain away a very simple statistic by trying to make a case for the US being a more dangerous place to live. The simple fact is, in almost every way you measure people's health the US lags behind other developed nations. You are somehow trying too make a case that the free market gives better results, besides theories that simply aren't supported by facts you have nothing too support that claim. The problems of Obamacare are irrelevant since your premise is that it's the government interference part that makes it fail, while even with ACA the US still has way less government interference then other nations who yield better result. In short you can't establish cause and effect to support your theory.

OK....OK....stop begging....

I'll be happy fill in yet one more of your lacunae....

WHO/UN

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General

The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.

WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses

theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf



After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.



Have you ever read a book?

Sooooo.....when did you graduate from government school?

Cato Institute.

USELESS

Try again.

But, because I am bored I will glance at it.

First, Cato admits life expectancy is a reasonable attribute to measure. Ours is lower than almost all industrialized nations.

Second, Cato admits Health Distribution and Responsiveness is a reasonable attribute to measure. Again, we fall short despite the claim of long "waiting lists" in nations with government health care.

The only statistics the Cato Institute has a problem with are those that measure "fairness". Like when a family spends a disproportionate amount of their disposable income on health care. To the Cato Institute it is not a problem that health care costs are the largest factor for individual bankruptcies. To the Cato Institute it is not a problem that some families largest expense in any given month is health care while other families spend only a token of their disposable income on health care. The Cato Institute has a problem with "fair" because they know, our capitalistic predatory market based health care system is inherently UNFAIR.

So yeah, WORTHLESS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Again in the case of healthcare the facts don't support that theory. In most other industrialized countries, the government takes a way more active role in healthcare. This results is a cheaper and better healthcare system. Why, because the for profit motive is taken as much as possible out of the equation. Economics of healthcare: which countries are getting it right?

You couldn't be more wrong.
You might try to be...but you wouldn't be successful.


How to judge healthcare:

life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
[Before Bolshevik....er, ObamaCare]

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Protected Blog › Log in


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf





BTW.....were you able to find any errors here:

1. The desire of many who support ObamaCare is to have others pay their healthcare insurance costs.

2. .....ObamaCare is not healthcare....it's healthcare insurance. Since 1986, everyone has had federally mandated healthcare.

3. Those in actual need of assistance to purchase healthcare insurance amounts to less than 0.05% of the population. There are many ways to solve their problem outside of destroying a very popular system: 85-90% of those within the system were happy with it.

4. ObamaCare has squandered enough money to give each of the above in need some $15,000 to purchase private healthcare insurance.

5. Rather than healthcare costs rising, healthcare costs were actully falling or leveling off.

6. Before ObamaCare, out of pocket expenses in the US were actually lower than in many nations with national insurance.

7. "Obama Promised Healthcare Premiums Would Fall $2,500 Per Family; They Have Climbed $4,865"
8. 'Bolshevik' is the accurate description, as ,nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917.

9. When you spend your own money on yourself you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost producing better products at better prices. Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost.

10 . Here's Obama stating he's for single payer:



None?

Excellent.

Wow you really do spout theory like a robot. Health Care Index by Country 2017 Mid-Year
This is an actual valuation of health care. The US is number 27. You are trying too explain away a very simple statistic by trying to make a case for the US being a more dangerous place to live. The simple fact is, in almost every way you measure people's health the US lags behind other developed nations. You are somehow trying too make a case that the free market gives better results, besides theories that simply aren't supported by facts you have nothing too support that claim. The problems of Obamacare are irrelevant since your premise is that it's the government interference part that makes it fail, while even with ACA the US still has way less government interference then other nations who yield better result. In short you can't establish cause and effect to support your theory.

OK....OK....stop begging....

I'll be happy fill in yet one more of your lacunae....

WHO/UN

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General

The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.

WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses

theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf



After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.



Have you ever read a book?

Sooooo.....when did you graduate from government school?

Cato Institute.

USELESS

Try again.

I've noticed that when the facts are irrefutable, real dunces blame the source.

Pretty much proves that you are a government school grad.




Just between the two of us….are you just a leeeeettttle disappointed at how you turned out?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm a major advocate of educating the foolish...

Free market answers should always be considered before collectivist responses to America's policies.
In the case of the Bolshevik Fallacy, ObamaCare, the flaw is in misunderstanding human nature.
If people have skin in the game, financially, they spend money far more carefully.

When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost."
Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost | Daniel J. Mitchell

Again in the case of healthcare the facts don't support that theory. In most other industrialized countries, the government takes a way more active role in healthcare. This results is a cheaper and better healthcare system. Why, because the for profit motive is taken as much as possible out of the equation. Economics of healthcare: which countries are getting it right?

You couldn't be more wrong.
You might try to be...but you wouldn't be successful.


How to judge healthcare:

life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
[Before Bolshevik....er, ObamaCare]

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Protected Blog › Log in


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf





BTW.....were you able to find any errors here:

1. The desire of many who support ObamaCare is to have others pay their healthcare insurance costs.

2. .....ObamaCare is not healthcare....it's healthcare insurance. Since 1986, everyone has had federally mandated healthcare.

3. Those in actual need of assistance to purchase healthcare insurance amounts to less than 0.05% of the population. There are many ways to solve their problem outside of destroying a very popular system: 85-90% of those within the system were happy with it.

4. ObamaCare has squandered enough money to give each of the above in need some $15,000 to purchase private healthcare insurance.

5. Rather than healthcare costs rising, healthcare costs were actully falling or leveling off.

6. Before ObamaCare, out of pocket expenses in the US were actually lower than in many nations with national insurance.

7. "Obama Promised Healthcare Premiums Would Fall $2,500 Per Family; They Have Climbed $4,865"
8. 'Bolshevik' is the accurate description, as ,nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917.

9. When you spend your own money on yourself you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost producing better products at better prices. Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost.

10 . Here's Obama stating he's for single payer:



None?

Excellent.

Wow you really do spout theory like a robot. Health Care Index by Country 2017 Mid-Year
This is an actual valuation of health care. The US is number 27. You are trying too explain away a very simple statistic by trying to make a case for the US being a more dangerous place to live. The simple fact is, in almost every way you measure people's health the US lags behind other developed nations. You are somehow trying too make a case that the free market gives better results, besides theories that simply aren't supported by facts you have nothing too support that claim. The problems of Obamacare are irrelevant since your premise is that it's the government interference part that makes it fail, while even with ACA the US still has way less government interference then other nations who yield better result. In short you can't establish cause and effect to support your theory.

OK....OK....stop begging....

I'll be happy fill in yet one more of your lacunae....

WHO/UN

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General

The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.

WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses

theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf



After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.



Have you ever read a book?

Sooooo.....when did you graduate from government school?

Cato Institute.

USELESS

Try again.

But, because I am bored I will glance at it.

First, Cato admits life expectancy is a reasonable attribute to measure. Ours is lower than almost all industrialized nations.

Second, Cato admits Health Distribution and Responsiveness is a reasonable attribute to measure. Again, we fall short despite the claim of long "waiting lists" in nations with government health care.

The only statistics the Cato Institute has a problem with are those that measure "fairness". Like when a family spends a disproportionate amount of their disposable income on health care. To the Cato Institute it is not a problem that health care costs are the largest factor for individual bankruptcies. To the Cato Institute it is not a problem that some families largest expense in any given month is health care while other families spend only a token of their disposable income on health care. The Cato Institute has a problem with "fair" because they know, our capitalistic predatory market based health care system is inherently UNFAIR.

So yeah, WORTHLESS.

"The Cato Institute is unquestionably a credible source. But don’t take my word for it. According to the 2015 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report from the University of Pennsylvania, Cato is ranked 11th in the world [PDF], just behind Amnesty International, and Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times described Cato as "one of the country’s most widely cited research organizations.”"
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Cato-Institute-a-credible-source-Why-or-why-not



So.....turns out you are useless, huh?