Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare!!!

[MarcATL]

It's going to be a big scam. Sorry, I don't have much faith in Trump on this one (at this point). If he gets a symbolic bitch slap or two on Obama, I'll have to settle for that.

Trump's already flipped on Obamacare--there won't be any repeal of it. He can't repeal it. You got Obamcare with a sitting Democrat President and super majorities in both houses. The only way to get rid of it, is with a Republican President and super majorities in both houses, and Republicans aren't anywhere close to that. They lost 6 seats in the house and 2 senate seats last Tuesday. We'll see if Ted Cruz threatens to shut down the government or defund Obamacare now--LOL

So the best they can do is tweek it and hopefully make it more affordable. The mandate stays, everyone is required to purchase medical insurance, pre-existing conditions are covered, and kids being allowed to stay on their parents medical insurance until they're 27 years old will remain.

Trump would be impeached if the mandate stays
.

Good luck with that.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.

It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist

First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.

The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.

The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.

Colorado was given a choice to have in state universal health care, and they rejected it soundly.

Hardly surprising seeing as the people with the money, are the people who have the interest in keeping a system which keeps them rich, and they'll fight tooth and nail to keep it, and spread lies through advertising to keep themselves rich. Wasn't this what Trump supporters wanted to do away with only a week ago? Sure, not they don't care.

They were talking about "draining the swamp", but I'm not seeing any evidence of that happening at this time. More rightwing cronyism.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.

It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist

First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.

The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.

The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.

get in the back seat dummy

face it the leftards lost this one

Who's more left than Trump?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[TooTall]

Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.

It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist

First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.

The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.

The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.

Then we can all die waiting for an appointment like the veterans do waiting on a government ran Veterans Administration. No thanks!

 

[TooTall]

Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.

It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist

First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.

The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.

The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.

What they are going to do is keep the requirement to buy insurance because that funnels unending money to insurance companies. They will just do away with subsidies for poor people.

Tantamount to forced servitude.

And no one should have any illusions, tens of millions are going to tell these fucktards to stick it up their ass. The streets will run red because of this and the other pile of crap the leper colony has in mind.

"They will just do away with subsidies for poor people."

Poor people don't get subsidies, they get Medicaid, and it doesn't cost them a cent.

 

[eflatminor]

Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.

It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist

First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.

The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.

The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.

Then we can all die waiting for an appointment like the veterans do waiting on a government ran Veterans Administration. No thanks!

Ooh, good point. The Feds run the VA top to bottom.

How's that working out???

 

[frigidweirdo]

That one got rejected before it had a chance to fail.

People love getting "free" stuff, but when they see the actual bill, the rightly balk at it.

But then again, get this, "free stuff" NHS costs HALF what the US health system costs.

You want to know why? They don't pay insurers massive amounts of money to do something unnecessary and to squeeze out large profits from doing something unnecessary, they don't pay pharma companies way over the odds for drugs, the doctors aren't screwing the system by taking backhanders to give out more expensive drugs, hospitals aren't taking massive profits etc etc.

When people get given a choice of a system which is probably going to be set up wrong just so they can use it to show that people don't want this system, then you know something is wrong.

The tories have capped NHS spending fora few years and that has led to problems. The NHS needs to be taken out of the political orbit and given a status with agreed levels of funding.
It shocked me to hear how Americans are being stiffed on drugs charges. They are an oppressed people.

So it's costing more than people thought, so the best solution is to throw more money at it?

Progressive stupidity at its finest.

No. Inflation increases, if you cap funding at a level, you're reducing funding. That's what the Tories have done. It's not costing more than people thought. However services are being affected. It took Labour 13 years to recover the NHS and teaching from the Tory decimation under Major, and then as soon as they've done it, the Tories come back in and decimate it again, while living on the good times before it gets really bad.

Another 1997 will happen again, with a Labour massive majority because people are fed up of the NHS and schools being so bad. Just hope to God it isn't Corbyn who gets the benefit of that.

And when you increase spending because of inflation, you get more of it.

One pound this year isn't worth one pound last year. So....

 

[martybegan]

But then again, get this, "free stuff" NHS costs HALF what the US health system costs.

You want to know why? They don't pay insurers massive amounts of money to do something unnecessary and to squeeze out large profits from doing something unnecessary, they don't pay pharma companies way over the odds for drugs, the doctors aren't screwing the system by taking backhanders to give out more expensive drugs, hospitals aren't taking massive profits etc etc.

When people get given a choice of a system which is probably going to be set up wrong just so they can use it to show that people don't want this system, then you know something is wrong.

The tories have capped NHS spending fora few years and that has led to problems. The NHS needs to be taken out of the political orbit and given a status with agreed levels of funding.
It shocked me to hear how Americans are being stiffed on drugs charges. They are an oppressed people.

So it's costing more than people thought, so the best solution is to throw more money at it?

Progressive stupidity at its finest.

No. Inflation increases, if you cap funding at a level, you're reducing funding. That's what the Tories have done. It's not costing more than people thought. However services are being affected. It took Labour 13 years to recover the NHS and teaching from the Tory decimation under Major, and then as soon as they've done it, the Tories come back in and decimate it again, while living on the good times before it gets really bad.

Another 1997 will happen again, with a Labour massive majority because people are fed up of the NHS and schools being so bad. Just hope to God it isn't Corbyn who gets the benefit of that.

And when you increase spending because of inflation, you get more of it.

One pound this year isn't worth one pound last year. So....

And a lot of that is due to added income without added value.

 

[boedicca]

Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.

It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist

First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.

The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.

The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.

What an incredibly stupid proposal.

No thank you.

Why is it stupid?

It's doubling down on what has caused ObamaCare to be such an epic failure in the first place: Centralized Planning.

It didn't work for the Soviet Union. It's not going to work for the U.S.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The tories have capped NHS spending fora few years and that has led to problems. The NHS needs to be taken out of the political orbit and given a status with agreed levels of funding.
It shocked me to hear how Americans are being stiffed on drugs charges. They are an oppressed people.

So it's costing more than people thought, so the best solution is to throw more money at it?

Progressive stupidity at its finest.

No. Inflation increases, if you cap funding at a level, you're reducing funding. That's what the Tories have done. It's not costing more than people thought. However services are being affected. It took Labour 13 years to recover the NHS and teaching from the Tory decimation under Major, and then as soon as they've done it, the Tories come back in and decimate it again, while living on the good times before it gets really bad.

Another 1997 will happen again, with a Labour massive majority because people are fed up of the NHS and schools being so bad. Just hope to God it isn't Corbyn who gets the benefit of that.

And when you increase spending because of inflation, you get more of it.

One pound this year isn't worth one pound last year. So....

And a lot of that is due to added income without added value.

Explain what your point is here.

 

[Silhouette]

The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.

Best way: Article I Section 8

Tax sodas & sugar, tobacco & booze (the sick pay for their own care after all!) at each register sale. Proportional on the dollar.

Require small co-pay at visits to discourage overuse

Reform malpractice lawsuits

Streamline to actual costs instead of what's being charged patients now: 10,000% markup on simple medical supplies provided. Invite regular public audits.

Keep private options for those that want them; but the private insurers & hospitals would have to compete with UH and could no longer justify their current 10,000% markup racket.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.

It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist

First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.

The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.

The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.

What an incredibly stupid proposal.

No thank you.

Why is it stupid?

It's doubling down on what has caused ObamaCare to be such an epic failure in the first place: Centralized Planning.

It didn't work for the Soviet Union. It's not going to work for the U.S.

But works in the UK.... go figure.

 

[Grizz]

Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.

It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist

First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.

The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.

The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.

Who pays for it pissant?

 

[whitehall]

Wow, the left wing hypocrite bigots who used to laugh at Christian values now want to play the morality card when it comes to health care. Guess what hypocrite bigots, Christian charities probably cared for more people than the federal government ever thought of. The federal government is a really bad source for the redistribution of wealth. The feds always get it wrong and they always screw it up.

 

[martybegan]

So it's costing more than people thought, so the best solution is to throw more money at it?

Progressive stupidity at its finest.

No. Inflation increases, if you cap funding at a level, you're reducing funding. That's what the Tories have done. It's not costing more than people thought. However services are being affected. It took Labour 13 years to recover the NHS and teaching from the Tory decimation under Major, and then as soon as they've done it, the Tories come back in and decimate it again, while living on the good times before it gets really bad.

Another 1997 will happen again, with a Labour massive majority because people are fed up of the NHS and schools being so bad. Just hope to God it isn't Corbyn who gets the benefit of that.

And when you increase spending because of inflation, you get more of it.

One pound this year isn't worth one pound last year. So....

And a lot of that is due to added income without added value.

Explain what your point is here.

Inflation is simply the loss of buying power of a currency. It's primary engine is increases in costs without corresponding increases in productivity or efficiency.

So if you give a raise to a worker without receiving any tangible benefit, you have to increase costs for the same work. When enough products or services have this occur, the workers pay is now insufficient, and they need another raise, which increases costs....

This is baseline inflation, it doesn't explain inflation say due to increases in currency circulation, or hyperinflation caused by economic collapse.

 

[AntonToo]

What you want is universal health care coverage like what people get when they have jobs and a legitimate insurance plan. And that is a fantasy that cannot exist because it wouldn't be insurance anymore.

Total incoherency. There is nothing about everyone having insurance, be it self covered or subsidized/covered plans from work or government, that is counter to concept of insurance.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No. Inflation increases, if you cap funding at a level, you're reducing funding. That's what the Tories have done. It's not costing more than people thought. However services are being affected. It took Labour 13 years to recover the NHS and teaching from the Tory decimation under Major, and then as soon as they've done it, the Tories come back in and decimate it again, while living on the good times before it gets really bad.

Another 1997 will happen again, with a Labour massive majority because people are fed up of the NHS and schools being so bad. Just hope to God it isn't Corbyn who gets the benefit of that.

And when you increase spending because of inflation, you get more of it.

One pound this year isn't worth one pound last year. So....

And a lot of that is due to added income without added value.

Explain what your point is here.

Inflation is simply the loss of buying power of a currency. It's primary engine is increases in costs without corresponding increases in productivity or efficiency.

So if you give a raise to a worker without receiving any tangible benefit, you have to increase costs for the same work. When enough products or services have this occur, the workers pay is now insufficient, and they need another raise, which increases costs....

This is baseline inflation, it doesn't explain inflation say due to increases in currency circulation, or hyperinflation caused by economic collapse.

Yes, and what is your point here?

The reality is that the NHS does cost more every year because of inflation. But is currently losing money in real terms.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Fine, but now we need to deal with the cost side of the equation, which was a primary pitfall of obamacare.

Big pharma, insurance companies, doctors and others going to the bank on the current system, along with their lobbyists, ain't gonna go peacefully.

If we can't figure that out then we haven't figured anything out in terms of how to realistically get everyone insured....

You want the doctors out of health care?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Lets replace the ACA with Universal healthcare! Everyone deserves never to have to suffer without healthcare and worry about having their lives destroyed by the debt.

It is the moral choice and it is right. Anyone that calls themselves christian should agree with me.
Universal Health Care: Cheaper and Better | The Agonist

First, public health is cheaper. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development studied the health expenses of all member countries – 29 in all including the United States. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.

The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.

The fastest way to fix our debt problem is to go from corporate healthcare to universal.

What an incredibly stupid proposal.

No thank you.

Why is it stupid?

It's doubling down on what has caused ObamaCare to be such an epic failure in the first place: Centralized Planning.

It didn't work for the Soviet Union. It's not going to work for the U.S.

But works in the UK.... go figure.

It really doesn't work in the UK. People are pulling their own teeth in the UK. Even getting into a hospital won't get you care. Patients were going so thirsty that they were drinking water from flower vases. Doctors had to prescribe water.

 

[martybegan]

And when you increase spending because of inflation, you get more of it.

One pound this year isn't worth one pound last year. So....

And a lot of that is due to added income without added value.

Explain what your point is here.

Inflation is simply the loss of buying power of a currency. It's primary engine is increases in costs without corresponding increases in productivity or efficiency.

So if you give a raise to a worker without receiving any tangible benefit, you have to increase costs for the same work. When enough products or services have this occur, the workers pay is now insufficient, and they need another raise, which increases costs....

This is baseline inflation, it doesn't explain inflation say due to increases in currency circulation, or hyperinflation caused by economic collapse.

Yes, and what is your point here?

The reality is that the NHS does cost more every year because of inflation. But is currently losing money in real terms.

The point is explaining inflation.

and is the NHS cost increases due to inflation, due to increased overhead, or increased patient load?