we need to repeal Obamacare and replace it with Medicare For All, my friends

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...Trump and his minions are far and away unAmerican

and socialism is American?????????????? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Got anymore “ ism” you want to scare yourself with.

How about socialism. Is 120 million dead human beings scary????

 

[Dagosa]

Got anymore “ ism” you want to scare yourself with.

How about socialism. Is 120 million dead human beings scary????

no one ever taught you what democratic socialism is have they ?
. Medicare for all will kill millions each year ?
Medicare for the elderly has saved lives. Are you saying every country that has universal healthcare is killing people ?

 

[Dagosa]

...Trump and his minions are far and away unAmerican

and socialism is American?????????????? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

How come conservatism has brought us another recession....10-11

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

whose with me?

I'm not because what we really need to do is end ALL government involvement in healthcare medicare included and make selling healthcare insurance illegal for the RIPoff fraud it really is.
That would put healthcare back to where it was before it was broken and turned into the criminal enterprise that it is today. The costs would come crashing back to earth. And the quality of care would increase because providers would again have to appeal to the patients care and happiness instead of milking some bullshit system that couldn't care less about quality or results in order to pay off.
Any fool can put it together. It's rudimentary cause and effect.

Every country with universal healthcare has cheaper expenses pe capita and they have better health outcomes. WTF do you want to pay profits to HI companies ? So they can sponsor more golf tournaments ?
View attachment 362506

Listen stupid, I was actually there when we had 100% private healthcare so don't try blowing that collective smoke up my ass because I'm not buying into it. Not ever. And I highly doubt you've actually seen or experenced anything.
Socialism doesn't not work, has never worked and never will work, not on any level, in any way, not ever. Every single solitary experiment in socialism without exception to date has either failed or is failing as we speak.
Get a friggin clue, dumbass!

Socialism doesn’t work ? You’re clueless. Medicare works for the elderly...it always has. It dramatically helped increase the life of those over 65. With just private, more people died.
Socialism.... Scary word. You know what’s scarier ? Bankruptcy....unpaid medical bills are the biggest cause.
now, throw-in fascism so you can be more afraid.


btw, we pay more in healthcare with private insurance then any where else in the world. The US pays more then every other country. You saw the references

You pay for Medicare, therefore it is not socialism.

 

[Flash]

whose with me?

Hell no!

What we need to do is start taking responsibility for our own heath care and get the oppressive government out of the business of redistributing income.

In other words you pay your bills and I pay mine and we leave the government out of it.

Sounds good or are you one of the greedy little shitheads that thinks you are entitled to have somebody else pay your bills just because you are alive?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

...Trump and his minions are far and away unAmerican

and socialism is American?????????????? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

How come conservatism has brought us another recession....10-11

You know, for a newby you sure spread a large volume of bullshit. Are you related to John Deere?

 

[Dagosa]

...Trump and his minions are far and away unAmerican

and socialism is American?????????????? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

How come conservatism has brought us another recession....10-11

You know, for a newby you sure spread a large volume of bullshit. Are you related to John Deere?

I hear you whine little child, but you’ve yet to disprove anything.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Managing National Debt "

* Negotiating Health Care Costs *

I mean competition in medical care so that prices come down. Is this concept too complicated for you? If you feel compelled to change subject you must ask yourself why!

The aca was designed to dismantle government agencies which dealt directly with private health care providers by shifting those responsibilities to private insurance companies .

Individuals who did not have health insurance would be forced to get insurance rather than deciding to visit urgent care when they had to do so and all too often ultimately leaving the bill with the taxpayer .

Health care for the uninsured represents a significant portion of federal expenditures and contributes significantly to the growing national debt .

Those opposed to aca did not want to include insurance in their budgets and it also meant increased premiums for those who did not qualify for aca as the costs to include the additional population would be distributed across the entirety of those insured .

As part of the aca , government negotiated insurance plans for the public as would a private corporation for its employees , which could include competition .

Clearly , the government should not be allowed to collect premiums and make investments in the free market to offset losses , as would private insurance companies .

Clearly , the government can set schedules and control costs of medical procedures while private insurance companies are less likely to consider as costs are passed onto policy holders within the guidelines of optimizing profits without debilitating the market .

It is understood that if insurance negotiated by the government for its citizens and offered through exchanges could compete with the quality and price of insurance plans negotiated by private employers for their employees , such that insurance plans from exchanges would be good enough to keep when an individual moved between employers , then the insurance plans negotiated by the government would be understood as universal plans .

The congressional budget office has yet to answer whether the statistic of government expenditures , where the government socialized those between 100% and 400% of the poverty line through regressive reimbursement , was ultimately less expensive than the statistics of government expenditures where govenment agencies negotiate with private health care providers and pay directly for the uninsured , thought its initial projection was that it would .

The costs of insurance would go back down for employees of private companies if the additional insured were not included , but doing so wil not mitigate the growing budget expenditures and contributions to the national debt arising from medical care for the uninsured .

 

[Dagosa]

" Managing National Debt "

* Negotiating Health Care Costs *

I mean competition in medical care so that prices come down. Is this concept too complicated for you? If you feel compelled to change subject you must ask yourself why!

The aca was designed to dismantle government agencies which dealt directly with private health care providers by shifting those responsibilities to private insurance companies .

Individuals who did not have health insurance would be forced to get insurance rather than deciding to visit urgent care when they had to do so and all too often ultimately leaving the bill with the taxpayer .

Health care for the uninsured represents a significant portion of federal expenditures and contributes significantly to the growing national debt .

Those opposed to aca did not want to include insurance in their budgets and it also meant increased premiums for those who did not qualify for aca as the costs to include the additional population would be distributed across the entirety of those insured .

As part of the aca , government negotiated insurance plans for the public as would a private corporation for its employees , which could include competition .

Clearly , the government should not be allowed to collect premiums and make investments in the free market to offset losses , as would private insurance companies .

Clearly , the government can set schedules and control costs of medical procedures while private insurance companies are less likely to consider as costs are passed onto policy holders within the guidelines of optimizing profits without debilitating the market .

It is understood that if insurance negotiated by the government for its citizens and offered through exchanges could compete with the quality and price of insurance plans negotiated by private employers for their employees , such that insurance plans from exchanges would be good enough to keep when an individual moved between employers , then the insurance plans negotiated by the government would be understood as universal plans .

The congressional budget office has yet to answer whether the statistic of government expenditures , where the government socialized those between 100% and 400% of the poverty line through regressive reimbursement , was ultimately less expensive than the statistics of government expenditures where govenment agencies negotiate with private health care providers and pay directly for the uninsured , thought its initial projection was that it would .

The costs of insurance would go back down for employees of private companies if the additional insured were not included , but doing so wil not mitigate the growing budget expenditures and contributions to the national debt arising from medical care for the uninsured .

" Managing National Debt "

* Negotiating Health Care Costs *

I mean competition in medical care so that prices come down. Is this concept too complicated for you? If you feel compelled to change subject you must ask yourself why!

The aca was designed to dismantle government agencies which dealt directly with private health care providers by shifting those responsibilities to private insurance companies .

Individuals who did not have health insurance would be forced to get insurance rather than deciding to visit urgent care when they had to do so and all too often ultimately leaving the bill with the taxpayer .

Health care for the uninsured represents a significant portion of federal expenditures and contributes significantly to the growing national debt .

Those opposed to aca did not want to include insurance in their budgets and it also meant increased premiums for those who did not qualify for aca as the costs to include the additional population would be distributed across the entirety of those insured .

As part of the aca , government negotiated insurance plans for the public as would a private corporation for its employees , which could include competition .

Clearly , the government should not be allowed to collect premiums and make investments in the free market to offset losses , as would private insurance companies .

Clearly , the government can set schedules and control costs of medical procedures while private insurance companies are less likely to consider as costs are passed onto policy holders within the guidelines of optimizing profits without debilitating the market .

It is understood that if insurance negotiated by the government for its citizens and offered through exchanges could compete with the quality and price of insurance plans negotiated by private employers for their employees , such that insurance plans from exchanges would be good enough to keep when an individual moved between employers , then the insurance plans negotiated by the government would be understood as universal plans .

The congressional budget office has yet to answer whether the statistic of government expenditures , where the government socialized those between 100% and 400% of the poverty line through regressive reimbursement , was ultimately less expensive than the statistics of government expenditures where govenment agencies negotiate with private health care providers and pay directly for the uninsured , thought its initial projection was that it would .

The costs of insurance would go back down for employees of private companies if the additional insured were not included , but doing so wil not mitigate the growing budget expenditures and contributions to the national debt arising from medical care for the uninsured .

Nope. The ACA was designed to provide quality health insurance to the millions who lost their jobs and their HC during the Bush recession. Private HC dumps people during recessions as they loose their jobs.
Private healthcare is MORE Expensive and it isn’t portable.

 

[Dagosa]

" Managing National Debt "

* Negotiating Health Care Costs *

I mean competition in medical care so that prices come down. Is this concept too complicated for you? If you feel compelled to change subject you must ask yourself why!

The aca was designed to dismantle government agencies which dealt directly with private health care providers by shifting those responsibilities to private insurance companies .

Individuals who did not have health insurance would be forced to get insurance rather than deciding to visit urgent care when they had to do so and all too often ultimately leaving the bill with the taxpayer .

Health care for the uninsured represents a significant portion of federal expenditures and contributes significantly to the growing national debt .

Those opposed to aca did not want to include insurance in their budgets and it also meant increased premiums for those who did not qualify for aca as the costs to include the additional population would be distributed across the entirety of those insured .

As part of the aca , government negotiated insurance plans for the public as would a private corporation for its employees , which could include competition .

Clearly , the government should not be allowed to collect premiums and make investments in the free market to offset losses , as would private insurance companies .

Clearly , the government can set schedules and control costs of medical procedures while private insurance companies are less likely to consider as costs are passed onto policy holders within the guidelines of optimizing profits without debilitating the market .

It is understood that if insurance negotiated by the government for its citizens and offered through exchanges could compete with the quality and price of insurance plans negotiated by private employers for their employees , such that insurance plans from exchanges would be good enough to keep when an individual moved between employers , then the insurance plans negotiated by the government would be understood as universal plans .

The congressional budget office has yet to answer whether the statistic of government expenditures , where the government socialized those between 100% and 400% of the poverty line through regressive reimbursement , was ultimately less expensive than the statistics of government expenditures where govenment agencies negotiate with private health care providers and pay directly for the uninsured , thought its initial projection was that it would .

The costs of insurance would go back down for employees of private companies if the additional insured were not included , but doing so wil not mitigate the growing budget expenditures and contributions to the national debt arising from medical care for the uninsured .

Nope. UHC is cheaper everywhere. We already have private insurance. It cost too much

 

[Dagosa]

" Managing National Debt "

* Negotiating Health Care Costs *

I mean competition in medical care so that prices come down. Is this concept too complicated for you? If you feel compelled to change subject you must ask yourself why!

The aca was designed to dismantle government agencies which dealt directly with private health care providers by shifting those responsibilities to private insurance companies .

Individuals who did not have health insurance would be forced to get insurance rather than deciding to visit urgent care when they had to do so and all too often ultimately leaving the bill with the taxpayer .

Health care for the uninsured represents a significant portion of federal expenditures and contributes significantly to the growing national debt .

Those opposed to aca did not want to include insurance in their budgets and it also meant increased premiums for those who did not qualify for aca as the costs to include the additional population would be distributed across the entirety of those insured .

As part of the aca , government negotiated insurance plans for the public as would a private corporation for its employees , which could include competition .

Clearly , the government should not be allowed to collect premiums and make investments in the free market to offset losses , as would private insurance companies .

Clearly , the government can set schedules and control costs of medical procedures while private insurance companies are less likely to consider as costs are passed onto policy holders within the guidelines of optimizing profits without debilitating the market .

It is understood that if insurance negotiated by the government for its citizens and offered through exchanges could compete with the quality and price of insurance plans negotiated by private employers for their employees , such that insurance plans from exchanges would be good enough to keep when an individual moved between employers , then the insurance plans negotiated by the government would be understood as universal plans .

The congressional budget office has yet to answer whether the statistic of government expenditures , where the government socialized those between 100% and 400% of the poverty line through regressive reimbursement , was ultimately less expensive than the statistics of government expenditures where govenment agencies negotiate with private health care providers and pay directly for the uninsured , thought its initial projection was that it would .

The costs of insurance would go back down for employees of private companies if the additional insured were not included , but doing so wil not mitigate the growing budget expenditures and contributions to the national debt arising from medical care for the uninsured .

how much evidence do you deniers need ? Universal HC is CHEAPER

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

" Managing National Debt "

* Negotiating Health Care Costs *

I mean competition in medical care so that prices come down. Is this concept too complicated for you? If you feel compelled to change subject you must ask yourself why!

The aca was designed to dismantle government agencies which dealt directly with private health care providers by shifting those responsibilities to private insurance companies .

Individuals who did not have health insurance would be forced to get insurance rather than deciding to visit urgent care when they had to do so and all too often ultimately leaving the bill with the taxpayer .

Health care for the uninsured represents a significant portion of federal expenditures and contributes significantly to the growing national debt .

Those opposed to aca did not want to include insurance in their budgets and it also meant increased premiums for those who did not qualify for aca as the costs to include the additional population would be distributed across the entirety of those insured .

As part of the aca , government negotiated insurance plans for the public as would a private corporation for its employees , which could include competition .

Clearly , the government should not be allowed to collect premiums and make investments in the free market to offset losses , as would private insurance companies .

Clearly , the government can set schedules and control costs of medical procedures while private insurance companies are less likely to consider as costs are passed onto policy holders within the guidelines of optimizing profits without debilitating the market .

It is understood that if insurance negotiated by the government for its citizens and offered through exchanges could compete with the quality and price of insurance plans negotiated by private employers for their employees , such that insurance plans from exchanges would be good enough to keep when an individual moved between employers , then the insurance plans negotiated by the government would be understood as universal plans .

The congressional budget office has yet to answer whether the statistic of government expenditures , where the government socialized those between 100% and 400% of the poverty line through regressive reimbursement , was ultimately less expensive than the statistics of government expenditures where govenment agencies negotiate with private health care providers and pay directly for the uninsured , thought its initial projection was that it would .

The costs of insurance would go back down for employees of private companies if the additional insured were not included , but doing so wil not mitigate the growing budget expenditures and contributions to the national debt arising from medical care for the uninsured .

" Managing National Debt "

* Negotiating Health Care Costs *

I mean competition in medical care so that prices come down. Is this concept too complicated for you? If you feel compelled to change subject you must ask yourself why!

The aca was designed to dismantle government agencies which dealt directly with private health care providers by shifting those responsibilities to private insurance companies .

Individuals who did not have health insurance would be forced to get insurance rather than deciding to visit urgent care when they had to do so and all too often ultimately leaving the bill with the taxpayer .

Health care for the uninsured represents a significant portion of federal expenditures and contributes significantly to the growing national debt .

Those opposed to aca did not want to include insurance in their budgets and it also meant increased premiums for those who did not qualify for aca as the costs to include the additional population would be distributed across the entirety of those insured .

As part of the aca , government negotiated insurance plans for the public as would a private corporation for its employees , which could include competition .

Clearly , the government should not be allowed to collect premiums and make investments in the free market to offset losses , as would private insurance companies .

Clearly , the government can set schedules and control costs of medical procedures while private insurance companies are less likely to consider as costs are passed onto policy holders within the guidelines of optimizing profits without debilitating the market .

It is understood that if insurance negotiated by the government for its citizens and offered through exchanges could compete with the quality and price of insurance plans negotiated by private employers for their employees , such that insurance plans from exchanges would be good enough to keep when an individual moved between employers , then the insurance plans negotiated by the government would be understood as universal plans .

The congressional budget office has yet to answer whether the statistic of government expenditures , where the government socialized those between 100% and 400% of the poverty line through regressive reimbursement , was ultimately less expensive than the statistics of government expenditures where govenment agencies negotiate with private health care providers and pay directly for the uninsured , thought its initial projection was that it would .

The costs of insurance would go back down for employees of private companies if the additional insured were not included , but doing so wil not mitigate the growing budget expenditures and contributions to the national debt arising from medical care for the uninsured .

Nope. The ACA was designed to provide quality health insurance to the millions who lost their jobs and their HC during the Bush recession. Private HC dumps people during recessions as they loose their jobs.
Private healthcare is MORE Expensive and it isn’t portable.

Better tighten up those loose jobs. You wouldn't want to lose them!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

" Managing National Debt "

* Negotiating Health Care Costs *

I mean competition in medical care so that prices come down. Is this concept too complicated for you? If you feel compelled to change subject you must ask yourself why!

The aca was designed to dismantle government agencies which dealt directly with private health care providers by shifting those responsibilities to private insurance companies .

Individuals who did not have health insurance would be forced to get insurance rather than deciding to visit urgent care when they had to do so and all too often ultimately leaving the bill with the taxpayer .

Health care for the uninsured represents a significant portion of federal expenditures and contributes significantly to the growing national debt .

Those opposed to aca did not want to include insurance in their budgets and it also meant increased premiums for those who did not qualify for aca as the costs to include the additional population would be distributed across the entirety of those insured .

As part of the aca , government negotiated insurance plans for the public as would a private corporation for its employees , which could include competition .

Clearly , the government should not be allowed to collect premiums and make investments in the free market to offset losses , as would private insurance companies .

Clearly , the government can set schedules and control costs of medical procedures while private insurance companies are less likely to consider as costs are passed onto policy holders within the guidelines of optimizing profits without debilitating the market .

It is understood that if insurance negotiated by the government for its citizens and offered through exchanges could compete with the quality and price of insurance plans negotiated by private employers for their employees , such that insurance plans from exchanges would be good enough to keep when an individual moved between employers , then the insurance plans negotiated by the government would be understood as universal plans .

The congressional budget office has yet to answer whether the statistic of government expenditures , where the government socialized those between 100% and 400% of the poverty line through regressive reimbursement , was ultimately less expensive than the statistics of government expenditures where govenment agencies negotiate with private health care providers and pay directly for the uninsured , thought its initial projection was that it would .

The costs of insurance would go back down for employees of private companies if the additional insured were not included , but doing so wil not mitigate the growing budget expenditures and contributions to the national debt arising from medical care for the uninsured .

Nope. UHC is cheaper everywhere. We already have private insurance. It cost too much

Healthcare in those countries is subsidized by the government. That is why the world comes here for the best medical care.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

" Managing National Debt "

* Negotiating Health Care Costs *

I mean competition in medical care so that prices come down. Is this concept too complicated for you? If you feel compelled to change subject you must ask yourself why!

The aca was designed to dismantle government agencies which dealt directly with private health care providers by shifting those responsibilities to private insurance companies .

Individuals who did not have health insurance would be forced to get insurance rather than deciding to visit urgent care when they had to do so and all too often ultimately leaving the bill with the taxpayer .

Health care for the uninsured represents a significant portion of federal expenditures and contributes significantly to the growing national debt .

Those opposed to aca did not want to include insurance in their budgets and it also meant increased premiums for those who did not qualify for aca as the costs to include the additional population would be distributed across the entirety of those insured .

As part of the aca , government negotiated insurance plans for the public as would a private corporation for its employees , which could include competition .

Clearly , the government should not be allowed to collect premiums and make investments in the free market to offset losses , as would private insurance companies .

Clearly , the government can set schedules and control costs of medical procedures while private insurance companies are less likely to consider as costs are passed onto policy holders within the guidelines of optimizing profits without debilitating the market .

It is understood that if insurance negotiated by the government for its citizens and offered through exchanges could compete with the quality and price of insurance plans negotiated by private employers for their employees , such that insurance plans from exchanges would be good enough to keep when an individual moved between employers , then the insurance plans negotiated by the government would be understood as universal plans .

The congressional budget office has yet to answer whether the statistic of government expenditures , where the government socialized those between 100% and 400% of the poverty line through regressive reimbursement , was ultimately less expensive than the statistics of government expenditures where govenment agencies negotiate with private health care providers and pay directly for the uninsured , thought its initial projection was that it would .

The costs of insurance would go back down for employees of private companies if the additional insured were not included , but doing so wil not mitigate the growing budget expenditures and contributions to the national debt arising from medical care for the uninsured .

how much evidence do you deniers need ? Universal HC is CHEAPER


View attachment 363094

Your chart is dogshit. It has no labels, dumbass!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Efficiency May Not Be Included "

* Cheaper Is Not Always Better *

Nope. UHC is cheaper everywhere. We already have private insurance. It cost too much

My inclination is to believe that the only reason universal health care could be less costly is by setting constraints on how much a health care provider can charge for a procedure .

A rule of private health care providers appears to be to collect as much as possible to the point of claiming the absurd and i have seen more often than not where insurance companies oblige the ridiculous , whereas the medicare pats private health care providers on the head as if offering pity for the insane and simply compensates them with what the government considers reasonable .

Americans also have little inclination to be denied services or to wait in line for services along with those who have contributed nothing to the system , especially when they can afford not to do so , so clearly supply and demand make a difference in us costs .

One might also consider the overall health of the listed non us countries compared with the bloated , borderline - cardiac arrest diabetic propensities of the us public - Obesity .

" Comparative Sizing "

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The United States is the world's largest economy with a GDP of approximately $20.513 trillion, notably due to high average incomes, a large population,[7] capital investment, low unemployment,[8] high consumer spending,[9] a relatively young population,[10] and technological innovation.[11]

 

[Dagosa]

" Managing National Debt "

* Negotiating Health Care Costs *

I mean competition in medical care so that prices come down. Is this concept too complicated for you? If you feel compelled to change subject you must ask yourself why!

The aca was designed to dismantle government agencies which dealt directly with private health care providers by shifting those responsibilities to private insurance companies .

Individuals who did not have health insurance would be forced to get insurance rather than deciding to visit urgent care when they had to do so and all too often ultimately leaving the bill with the taxpayer .

Health care for the uninsured represents a significant portion of federal expenditures and contributes significantly to the growing national debt .

Those opposed to aca did not want to include insurance in their budgets and it also meant increased premiums for those who did not qualify for aca as the costs to include the additional population would be distributed across the entirety of those insured .

As part of the aca , government negotiated insurance plans for the public as would a private corporation for its employees , which could include competition .

Clearly , the government should not be allowed to collect premiums and make investments in the free market to offset losses , as would private insurance companies .

Clearly , the government can set schedules and control costs of medical procedures while private insurance companies are less likely to consider as costs are passed onto policy holders within the guidelines of optimizing profits without debilitating the market .

It is understood that if insurance negotiated by the government for its citizens and offered through exchanges could compete with the quality and price of insurance plans negotiated by private employers for their employees , such that insurance plans from exchanges would be good enough to keep when an individual moved between employers , then the insurance plans negotiated by the government would be understood as universal plans .

The congressional budget office has yet to answer whether the statistic of government expenditures , where the government socialized those between 100% and 400% of the poverty line through regressive reimbursement , was ultimately less expensive than the statistics of government expenditures where govenment agencies negotiate with private health care providers and pay directly for the uninsured , thought its initial projection was that it would .

The costs of insurance would go back down for employees of private companies if the additional insured were not included , but doing so wil not mitigate the growing budget expenditures and contributions to the national debt arising from medical care for the uninsured .

how much evidence do you deniers need ? Universal HC is CHEAPER


View attachment 363094

Your chart is dogshit. It has no labels, dumbass!

You had nothing, and will have nothing to refute it. Wikipedia

 

[Dagosa]

" Efficiency May Not Be Included "

* Cheaper Is Not Always Better *

Nope. UHC is cheaper everywhere. We already have private insurance. It cost too much

My inclination is to believe that the only reason universal health care could be less costly is by setting constraints on how much a health care provider can charge for a procedure .

A rule of private health care providers appears to be to collect as much as possible to the point of claiming the absurd and i have seen more often than not where insurance companies oblige the ridiculous , whereas the medicare pats private health care providers on the head as if offering pity for the insane and simply compensates them with what the government considers reasonable .

Americans also have little inclination to be denied services or to wait in line for services along with those who have contributed nothing to the system , especially when they can afford not to do so .

One might also consider the overall health of the listed non us countries listed compared with the bloated , borderline cardiac arrest and diabetic , propensities of the us public - Obesity .

" Comparative Sizing "

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The United States is the world's largest economy with a GDP of approximately $20.513 trillion, notably due to high average incomes, a large population,[7] capital investment, low unemployment,[8] high consumer spending,[9] a relatively young population,[10] and technological innovation.[11]

So you admit it cost more in America. Let’s get that out of the way first.

 

[Dagosa]

You are dog shit. John’s Hopkins and Bloomberg
AMERICANS ON AVERAGE CONTINUE TO SPEND MUCH MORE FOR HEALTH CARE—WHILE GETTING LESS CARE—THAN PEOPLE IN OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2019/us-health-care-spending-highest-among-developed-countries.html

 

[Dagosa]

" Managing National Debt "

* Negotiating Health Care Costs *

I mean competition in medical care so that prices come down. Is this concept too complicated for you? If you feel compelled to change subject you must ask yourself why!

The aca was designed to dismantle government agencies which dealt directly with private health care providers by shifting those responsibilities to private insurance companies .

Individuals who did not have health insurance would be forced to get insurance rather than deciding to visit urgent care when they had to do so and all too often ultimately leaving the bill with the taxpayer .

Health care for the uninsured represents a significant portion of federal expenditures and contributes significantly to the growing national debt .

Those opposed to aca did not want to include insurance in their budgets and it also meant increased premiums for those who did not qualify for aca as the costs to include the additional population would be distributed across the entirety of those insured .

As part of the aca , government negotiated insurance plans for the public as would a private corporation for its employees , which could include competition .

Clearly , the government should not be allowed to collect premiums and make investments in the free market to offset losses , as would private insurance companies .

Clearly , the government can set schedules and control costs of medical procedures while private insurance companies are less likely to consider as costs are passed onto policy holders within the guidelines of optimizing profits without debilitating the market .

It is understood that if insurance negotiated by the government for its citizens and offered through exchanges could compete with the quality and price of insurance plans negotiated by private employers for their employees , such that insurance plans from exchanges would be good enough to keep when an individual moved between employers , then the insurance plans negotiated by the government would be understood as universal plans .

The congressional budget office has yet to answer whether the statistic of government expenditures , where the government socialized those between 100% and 400% of the poverty line through regressive reimbursement , was ultimately less expensive than the statistics of government expenditures where govenment agencies negotiate with private health care providers and pay directly for the uninsured , thought its initial projection was that it would .

The costs of insurance would go back down for employees of private companies if the additional insured were not included , but doing so wil not mitigate the growing budget expenditures and contributions to the national debt arising from medical care for the uninsured .

how much evidence do you deniers need ? Universal HC is CHEAPER


View attachment 363094

Your chart is dogshit. It has no labels, dumbass!

Now whine and slander but produce no evidence. Because there is none. America pays more for less when it comes to healthcare.