Republican senators block extension to ACA subsidies

Belgium does better than Canada and the UK?

Good for them.
Canada and the UK does better than the US too across most metrics

Something you keep on ignoring by giving your opinion on how those systems work. Not evidence.

Why don't you deal with that fact. Instead of working in abstractions.
 
Canada and the UK does better than the US too across most metrics

Something you keep on ignoring by giving your opinion on how those systems work. Not evidence.

Why don't you deal with that fact. Instead of working in abstractions.

1765652275408.webp


1765652356592.webp
 
Belgium does better than Canada and the UK?

Good for them.
Belgium is smaller than the State of Maryland and has a population slightly larger than Los Angeles County. To compare it to Canada, the U.K., and especially the U.S.A. is akin to comparing Muleshoe Tx to New York City.

Things that are practical and workable for small areas and/or small populations are usually not so much practical and workable for huge areas and large populations.
 
Last edited:
How old is that first chart? Pandemic-era data isn’t representative for any system.

But let’s accept the second one.

What you’re saying, then, is that you prefer a system where some people get faster access, because others are priced out entirely. That’s your trade-off.

Being unable to afford care is not the absence of rationing; it’s the strictest form of it. And unlike rationing by time, that form of rationing tends to be permanent.

And the idea that Americans don’t wait is simply false. They wait for approvals, referrals, and coverage decisions all the time, sometimes longer than people in universal systems. I gave an example myself.

I looked up that in Metropolitan areas the average wait times for seeing a primary care doctor is 23,5 days. For a cardiologist 33 days, that seems a non-time sensitive specialty don't it?

So the question isn’t whether care is rationed. It’s whether it’s rationed by time or by money. Or in a city in the US by time AND money.
 
Last edited:
Today Republicans blocked the extension of subsidies to help people pay for health care premiums.

The party with majorities in every branch of government continues to fight against affordability:
Blame it on the democrats, not the republicans. The democrats let the insurance companies write
the Bill, it was passed in the middle of the night behind closed doors with no republican votes.
It was a debacle that was destined to fail, and it has.
Subsidies, subsidies, subsidies.....come at a steep price.
 
So, before that Obamacare made healthcare affordable for every American and you could keep your doctor?

:laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301:
Yes, the deletion of the mandate eliminated the one, main provision to make health insurance cheaper.

You probably didn't know the mandate was actually their idea. Newsmax does not show you things like this.
 
How old is that first chart? Pandemic-era data isn’t representative for any system.

But let’s accept the second one.

What you’re saying, then, is that you prefer a system where some people get faster access, because others are priced out entirely. That’s your trade-off.

Being unable to afford care is not the absence of rationing; it’s the strictest form of it. And unlike rationing by time, that form of rationing tends to be permanent.

And the idea that Americans don’t wait is simply false. They wait for approvals, referrals, and coverage decisions all the time, sometimes longer than people in universal systems. I gave an example myself.

I looked up that in Metropolitan areas the average wait times for seeing a primary care doctor is 23,5 days. For a cardiologist 33 days, that seems a non-time sensitive specialty don't it?

So the question isn’t whether care is rationed. It’s whether it’s rationed by time or by money. Or in a city in the US by time AND money.

2 days ago better?

Access to hospital treatments is being restricted in many areas of England as the NHS struggles to balance its books, the BBC has learnt.

Regional health boards have ordered some hospitals to cut back on the number of patients they are seeing, meaning hundreds of thousands of patients could have to wait longer for treatment.

The rationing measures are being applied mainly to private firms doing NHS work, but multiple NHS hospitals are understood to be affected too.

NHS managers said they were between a "rock and a hard place" trying to juggle balancing the books with tackling the hospital backlog, which currently stands at 7.4 million.
1765654010216.webp

 
Yes, the deletion of the mandate eliminated the one, main provision to make health insurance cheaper.

You probably didn't know the mandate was actually their idea. Newsmax does not show you things like this.

How much money did Obama expect to rake in and how would it be used to make healthcare affordable for all Americans?
 
How much money did Obama expect to rake in and how would it be used to make healthcare affordable for all Americans?
The little untold secret from Obama was that the ACA was just a stepping
stone knowing it was to fail, and that the only out was to go the rest of the
way with universal healthcare. That was the goal, but it needed baby steps
to get there. Well....here we are.
 
2 days ago better?

Access to hospital treatments is being restricted in many areas of England as the NHS struggles to balance its books, the BBC has learnt.

Regional health boards have ordered some hospitals to cut back on the number of patients they are seeing, meaning hundreds of thousands of patients could have to wait longer for treatment.

The rationing measures are being applied mainly to private firms doing NHS work, but multiple NHS hospitals are understood to be affected too.

NHS managers said they were between a "rock and a hard place" trying to juggle balancing the books with tackling the hospital backlog, which currently stands at 7.4 million.
View attachment 1193293
Are you ever going to answer a premise?

-Do you think not being to be able to afford healthcare is a form of rationing?
-Do you claim Americans don't wait to receive healthcare?
- Do you believe that longer waits is a the best way to evaluate healthcare?

Answer these questions please.
 
How much money did Obama expect to rake in and how would it be used to make healthcare affordable for all Americans?
I'm not your mommy. Make your own point, in your own words.

So, back to the mandate.. it was the main provision to male insurance cheaper. And the GOP -- despite it being their own idea -- deleted it out of spite for the smilin' brown guy who ate their lunch.
 
Blame it on the democrats, not the republicans. The democrats let the insurance companies write
the Bill, it was passed in the middle of the night behind closed doors with no republican votes.
It was a debacle that was destined to fail, and it has.
Subsidies, subsidies, subsidies.....come at a steep price.
Does the bill written by House Republicans extend subsidies?
 
Are you ever going to answer a premise?

-Do you think not being to be able to afford healthcare is a form of rationing?
-Do you claim Americans don't wait to receive healthcare?
- Do you believe that longer waits is a the best way to evaluate healthcare?

Answer these questions please.

Of course, unaffordability is a form of rationing.
Of course, Americans wait.
Do you think extremely long wait times should be ignored?
Because, after all, those free government run health systems are so much better than ours.
DURR
 
15th post
Of course, unaffordability is a form of rationing.
Of course, Americans wait.
Do you think extremely long wait times should be ignored?
Because, after all, those free government run health systems are so much better than ours.
DURR
You answered two

I didn't ask you or claimed they should be ignored.
-I asked if that's the best way in your opinion to evaluate healthcare systems?


I'm asking these questions so we can distill your arguments. We are trying to do a comparative review. I want to know what criteria we should use and why.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom