Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2017 9:47 AM
386 online now:
edge, NoNukes, PaulK (3 members, 383 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,202 Year: 16,808/21,208 Month: 2,697/3,593 Week: 164/646 Day: 42/62 Hour: 1/7

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Author Topic:   Republican Healthcare Plan
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 106 of 178 (794595)
11-17-2016 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Modulous
11-17-2016 3:13 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
I'd argue there is a suggestion here that the spending isn't benefiting the health of the people, but the pockets of the corporations.

No shit. We also like to treat symptoms instead of fixing the underlying cause.

Like, instead of changing your diet and exercising and loosing some weight, why don't you just take this medication everyday for the rest of your life

Well, no. Otherwise Medicare would decide 0 and the doctors would decide infinite.

Only if they wanted to run themselves out of business...

No doctor would take Medicare and no patient would visit that doctor.

In both cases the hospital administration charges as much as it can and Medicare and the private insurance companies try to pay as little as they can.

Medicare dictates to the providers what they will be paid for services. The providers then decide if they want in or not.

With the NHS, young healthy people that feel immortal still contribute, and if they have high income they are contributing a lot (On 120,000 a year they'd be a healthy person paying about 15,000 a year for national health insurance, their employer would pay about 5700).

For a total of 20,700!?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 11-17-2016 3:13 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 11-17-2016 5:33 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2016 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


(3)
Message 107 of 178 (794596)
11-17-2016 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2016 9:55 AM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Cat Sci responds to me:

quote:
My employer would be saving money and I would be losing money.

Someone doesn't understand how insurance works.

Your employer isn't paying for your insurance. You are. All of it. The premiums are paid out of your compensation package for your labor. If the expense that your compensation is being paid for isn't there anymore, then it is owed to you.

If your employer is gouging you out of your compensation package, you need to talk to your employer. The reason your employer is providing you health coverage is because they're getting a tax break out of it and that they would have a hard time hiring people if they didn't provide health insurance.

The health insurance is a benefit negotiated as part of your compensation package. That's why the Hobby Lobby decision was such a moronic result: Your employer doesn't get to tell you what you do with your money. And let me repeat this: Your employer does not pay for your insurance. You are. All of it.

Suppose you want to pay for your healthcare. You could go it alone, but unless you are exceedingly wealthy, there will be a point where your medical costs exceed your ability to pay. Thus, you may decide to put some money away into a fund to be used for paying healthcare. You'll invest it so that it can grow bigger and you'll be able to pay for more expensive treatment and such.

But you'll still probably not have enough. So you may decide to talk to your friends and you can all pool your money together. This will allow you to leverage economies of scale and make more lucrative investments than you would have been able to achieve had you stayed alone.

But now you have to decide how to manage this fund. After all, when it was just your money, you could decide to raid your healthcare fund to pay for repairs to the roof or your kid's college tuition. When you're dealing with a fund that has other people involved, you don't want them raiding the fund for something that isn't what the fund is supposed to be for. And you'll have to decide what happens when someone wishes to leave the fund. Do they get to take their share of the entire fund and walk away? That can quickly lead to the dissolution of the fund if enough members decide to walk.

And thus, you might decide that the fund is its own separate entity. When pay your premium, you aren't as much "paying into the fund" as you are paying for *access* to the fund. The amount of your premium will be based upon your expected need to draw from it, yes, but that's the cost of maintaining the fund. When you decide to leave, you don't get to have access to it, you don't get any of your premiums back, there is no prorating of your payments. You weren't paying into the fund but rather for access to it.

And that's how insurance works. The insurance company owns the fund and your premium is to gain access to their fund to pay for your healthcare.

Now, group policies help to maintain the cost of that access. If it's just you seeking to gain access to that fund, it's going to be expensive. You are bearing all the risk of your potential need to draw upon it. By joining together with others, you can distribute that risk so that you don't need to pay so much. But where to find others who want to go in with you to buy access to the fund?

And that's where your employer comes in. They can provide the insurance company with a group of people (thus, "group insurance") who will combine their payments together. Depending upon the policy in question and how your employer wants to manage it, it may be entirely covered (as it was for me when I was at Corbis) or there may be a base rate and you need to pay a bit extra depending upon your circumstances such as being single, married, kids, etc. (as it was for every other job I've had.) But that base rate needs to be paid in order to keep the group rate solid, regardless of whether or not you decide to opt into the insurance. For example, your spouse may have a better insurance policy and rather than use your company's insurance, you want to be on your spouse's so you'll opt out of your company's insurance. You still need to pay into it because it is a benefit of the company and the only way to keep that benefit for all the other members of the company is to pay for it. And who knows...if your spouse becomes unemployed, you're going to need insurance so it behooves you to help keep your employer's insurance policy something that exists even if you aren't using it right now.

But where did that money come from to pay for the insurance? It's not coming out of the employer's pocket. Even if your paycheck doesn't have any deductions coming out of it for premiums for healthcare, those premiums are still being paid for by you, the employee. They are part of your compensation package. That money has been set aside to pay for the insurance before it goes to you as salary. That's why if your employer-based insurance does have a secondary cost that you have to pay above the base rate, it's paid for with pre-tax dollars. That is money that you earned from your labor and you have agreed will be used to pay for the insurance.

So if that expense were to go away, if suddenly there were no private insurance but we instead had Medicare for All, for example, then your compensation package now has money that isn't being disbursed.

Where's it going to go?

If your employer takes it back, then they're gouging you and you need to talk to your employer. After all, you need that money to pay for your insurance. That you are paying for it through a "tax" and not a "premium" is irrelevant. The insurance needs to be paid for and that was the money that was being used to pay for it.

But hey, we're so used to employers gouging the employees that nobody seems to think that the employer should be ashamed to take that money back. All the productivity increases we've seen in the American economy for the past 30 years have gone to the wealthiest (Thanks, Reagan!) Wages have been flat. Unions have been all but destroyed. After all, it's because of unions that we even have employer-based insurance to begin with (before, most people didn't have insurance because it was simply too expensive. Unions bargained with employers to leverage the fact that they were a group to drive the cost of access to insurance down and thus, employer-based insurance was born. FDR tried to create a national insurance system as he understood, given the Depression, that you shouldn't have to have a job to get insurance but couldn't get the support for it.) This is why unions are so important: Even if you aren't a member of a union, you gain the benefits that they negotiate for. If the insurance system were to become nationalized and paid for through payroll taxes, you can be damned sure that the unions are going to demand that the money in their compensation packages that was once used to pay for "premiums" are to be given to the employee so that they can pay the "tax" used for insurance.

quote:
In the UK, the 40% tax bracket starts at roughly a tenth of that amount (43,001).

Someone doesn't understand the exchange rate. 43,001 is more than $50K in the US and before Brexit and the collapse of the pound, it was more like $70K.

And you forget all of the services that are paid for out of those taxes. For example, healthcare.

This really comes down to you preferring to pay $8000 a year in "premiums" rather than $4000 a year in "taxes," doesn't it? That word "tax" is such a bugaboo that you would rather pay twice as much in order to avoid the word "tax."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


(5)
Message 108 of 178 (794597)
11-17-2016 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2016 9:59 AM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Cat Sci writes:

quote:
I said that having the government in charge of something makes is more expensive.

That isn't true and Medicare is one of the great examples of why it isn't.

quote:
You responded saying how great Medicare is. Medicare is not that great because you still have to buy additional insurance.

That doesn't negate the fact that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. And no, you don't "have to buy additional insurance." Medicare doesn't pay for everything and thus, if you cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs, you can buy additional insurance. But that's something for Congress to fix. The problem isn't Medicare. And it isn't because Medicare is more expensive.

Because it isn't.

quote:
Yes, that is the governments fault, but that is more reason why they suck at being in charge of something.

So which do you think is the better solution:

"Government can't solve anything so I'm going to elect people who also think that government can't solve anything who will do everything they can to make the situation worse (since "government can't solve anything") and then use that as an example of how government can't solve anything."

OR

"Government is sometimes the only way to solve anything so I'm going to elect people who also think that government is sometimes the only way to solve anything who will do everything they can to improve the situation (since "government is sometimes the only way to solve anything") and then use that as an example of how government can solve something."

It's amazing to me that people bought Reagan's line: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" And thus, for the past 30+ years, they have been electing people who think government is the problem, that government doesn't work, that they promise to dismantle government so that it cannot work...

...and then complain when government doesn't work.

Here's a thought: Why not start electing people who understand how government and public service works, who can actually manage such public works to make them function, and stop complaining when they actually do their job?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 9:59 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(3)
Message 109 of 178 (794598)
11-17-2016 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2016 4:37 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Cat Sci writes:

Stupid Americans...

Those Americans go to the emergency room because they can't be denied service due to lack of insurance like they can at a family doc. The way we pay for healthcare has everything to do with why these people are going to the emergency room. This is exactly what I am talking about.

No, we negotiated a salary and then benefits are on top. The benefits do not come out of my pocket.

Yes, they do come out of your pocket whether you want to admit it or not. If they weren't paying for insurance they could be paying that money to you directly.

Not propaganda, direct experience. I've worked in VA and non-VA hospitals and they are shit compared to others. One VA was so attrocious that we walked out on them without even starting the service we where there to do for them. It was so filthy that my cowokers and I were not willing to risk our health to do the job.

You can find private hospitals with the same problems.

And your score comes from a terribly low sample size. Of the 5,803,890 veterans using VA Health Care in 2013, that survey attempted to contact 1188 of them. 26.5% completed the survey so your sample size ended at 250. 250 people out of 5.8 million...

What that tells you is how vets who are willing to complete a survey feel about the VA... The vets I know who hate the VA would hang-up on a survey like that.

Then show me evidence that the VA is worse. I have evidence showing that it is the same as private hospitals.

Huh? And what about the other two examples?

Are you really trying to stand by the claim that it doesn't cost the government more to do things than it does the private sector?

Are you going to demonstrate that the US government running healthcare would cost more money than it does now? Or are you going to just keep asserting it without any evidence?

Driving up the price in response to the government meddling... Just like people going to the ER for preventable conditions is a response to government meddling.

Seriously?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 4:37 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2016 6:19 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 11:42 AM Taq has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4774
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(12)
Message 110 of 178 (794599)
11-17-2016 5:33 PM


All of this economic nonsense totally misses the point of what happens to people.

I was born into a system whereby everybody, no matter who he or she is, has medical help free at the point of delivery no matter what - no exceptionss, no qualifications. A medical emergency cannot bankrupt me and I know that if the worst happens to me or my family, we'll get health care of exceptional quality regardless of my personal circumstances. It's not without terrible problems but it's one of those world class, civilisation changing ideas that once experienced cannot be given up.

You'd have to be insane not to want to buy into such a system. Utterly insane.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 111 of 178 (794600)
11-17-2016 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2016 4:47 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Only if they wanted to run themselves out of business...

No doctor would take Medicare and no patient would visit that doctor.

Exactly. It's not the doctor deciding the price. It's not Medicare deciding the price. There are other elements to the equation.

Medicare dictates to the providers what they will be paid for services. The providers then decide if they want in or not.

Right, but if all the providers don't want in, Medicare gets no service. So actually it is not unilateral. Would you believe that the government actually discusses pricing with their suppliers? That they come to an agreement with the major suppliers as to a fair price and then can say 'like it or lump it' to the rest of the suppliers. This is the negotiation power that numbers gives them. If it was universal, the negotiation is at its most efficient.

For a total of 20,700!?

A company that can afford to pay someone 120K a year has to pay the additional kicker so the kitty gets a nice bump from the top 10 percent of earners, but the calculator I was using may have crapped out because it ignored some caps for simplicity. Here's an approximate breakdown assuming no tax cleverness but taking into account the caps and ignoring employer contribution {which in the case of the high earner, is about 15K I think}:

Gross Wage 120,000
Taxable Wage 119,400
Tax Paid 41,403
Tax Free Allowance 600
National Insurance 5,671
Take-home pay 72,926

Compared to the average wage:

Gross Wage 25,000
Taxable Wage 14,400
Tax Paid 2,880
Tax Free Allowance 10,600
National Insurance 2,033
Take-home pay 20,087

The wealthy pay over the odds and can afford to do so. The poor pay nothing or close to it:

Gross Wage 12,000
Taxable Wage 1,400
Tax Paid 280
Tax Free Allowance 10,600
National Insurance 473
Take-home pay 11,247


Note: The national insurance also pays into other benefits such as the State Pension, unemployment and so on.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 4:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 10:17 AM Modulous has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18664
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 112 of 178 (794602)
11-17-2016 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2016 4:47 PM


two questions
Two questions Cat Sci:

(1) why do you want your employer to pick your insurance? (Do they pick you car insurance for you?)

and

(2) why do you want to use a for-profit insurance company when ~40% (or more) goes into some pocket other than paying your health bills?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 4:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 10:15 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18664
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 113 of 178 (794603)
11-17-2016 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Taq
11-17-2016 5:25 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Those Americans go to the bcy room because they can't be denied service due to lack of insurance like they can at a family doc. The way we pay for healthcare has everything to do with why these people are going to the emergency room. This is exactly what I am talking about.

We pay for it one way or the other, in taxes, in direct payments, or in reduced health, even early death. Reduced health affects coworkers either directly, through spreading infections, or directly, in causing others to cover and pick up all or some of your workload (iirc there are stats on how much poor health costs businesses every year, costs that get passed to consumers).

People with no coverage and minimum wage jobs tend to put off care to the last minute

With universal health care people would tend to go earlier and take advantage of prevention programs (flue vacinations etc).

So the question becomes how do we want to pay for it and what do you want for your buck.

Getting businesses out of the business of choosing your healthcare also means they can't impose choices (or lack thereof) on you that you would not make (Hobby Lobby and birth control for example).

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 11-17-2016 5:25 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1474
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


(4)
Message 114 of 178 (794605)
11-17-2016 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2016 9:39 AM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
My employer pays me a salary and on top of that they pay for my health insurance as a benefit.

Well, lucky you. The places I worked have all required me to pay a portion of the insurance premiums.

Going to the single payer system above would take money out of my pocket and save my employer the cost of insurance premiums. No thanks.

Oh, I didn't realize. The rest of us should just continue being fucked over so we don't rock the boat for you. Right now for profit insurance is doing a shitty job for most of us and it is far more expensive than it needs to be so the top executive can make billions for which they pay little or no tax.

That is how Medicare is right now, the individual pays about $100 a month (out of their Social Security check).

Medicare also requires supplemental insurance.

Yes, I am aware of that. I pay $100 a month for medicare that covers about 80% of my medical costs. The Bush administration pushed through the medicare bill that was written by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies so they could get a piece of the action. The other 20% of my medical bills cost me $600 a month plus there are co-pays and deductibles.

Medicare has a 3% overhead, insurance companies have a 50-60% overhead.

So why would you want them in charge of your healthcare?

I don't want Congress in charge I want Medicare in charge. They do a great job compared to private insurance.

I don't know about you, but I have been dealing with private sector billing and insurance fuck ups constantly for the past decade.

I'd expect it to be worse with the government...

How flawless is the Medicare billing?

Well, you would be wrong. I have never had an error on the Medicare side of things.

More and more of our government is being sabotaged and privatized and as the saying goes, "You ain't seen nothing yet!"

And yet, you still want them in charge of your healthcare?

I guess I should have been clearer. I want the assholes in Congress to stop sabotaging the government and start actually doing their job to make it better.

Without a government there would be chaos, not civilization. Government is the entity that is created by a group of people to maintain a civilization and taxes are the price of civilization.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : grammer


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2016 9:39 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 10:08 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 115 of 178 (794611)
11-18-2016 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Tanypteryx
11-17-2016 7:31 PM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Oh, I didn't realize. The rest of us should just continue being fucked over so we don't rock the boat for you.

Oh man, I'm so sorry that my opinion is different from yours

I love how if someone doesn't tow the party line, then they're evil and they want you to die. Such tolerance.

I don't want Congress in charge I want Medicare in charge.

Medicare is still run by the feds. I'm fine with you trusting them, but I don't have to.

Medicare has a 3% overhead, insurance companies have a 50-60% overhead.

Overhead? Or administration costs? There's a lot of different numbers on this stuff floating around out there, and the 50-60% seems high.

Does that 3% incude the cost of the 6000 CMS employees? Or is it just for whatever counts as "administration"?

Consider, though, that Medicare patients tend to require a lot more procedures and thus the amount of spending per person is higher, so you're dividing the administraion costs by a larger denominator. Its not really a fair side-by-side comparison.

And it really depends on who you ask... Not that I trust heritage.org, but they're (of course) saying the opposite:

From Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance:

That's some old-ass data, but I'm not really relying on it for an argument. Just sayin' there's a lot of mixed messages out there.

I guess I should have been clearer. I want the assholes in Congress to stop sabotaging the government and start actually doing their job to make it better.

Don't we all. Again, you can continue to trust that this may happen, but I don't have to. And I don't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-17-2016 7:31 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 11-18-2016 11:20 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 116 of 178 (794612)
11-18-2016 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by RAZD
11-17-2016 5:57 PM


Re: two questions
why do you want your employer to pick your insurance?

There was a list of different insurance companies I could choose from, which were various big name insurance companies that I've seen before.

I don't really care what the name of the insurance company is, as long as my doctor accepts it (which I verified before selecting) then its fine with me.

why do you want to use a for-profit insurance company when ~40% (or more) goes into some pocket other than paying your health bills?

I haven't really thought about it. I have mixed feelings about health insurance being for-profit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2016 5:57 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 117 of 178 (794613)
11-18-2016 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Modulous
11-17-2016 5:33 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
For a total of 20,700!?

A company that can afford to pay someone 120K a year has to pay the additional kicker so the kitty gets a nice bump from the top 10 percent of earners,

Hang on. Are you telling me that an insurance plan costs over 20,000 a year? I thought it was supposed to be cheaper over there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 11-17-2016 5:33 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Modulous, posted 11-18-2016 10:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 118 of 178 (794621)
11-18-2016 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
11-18-2016 10:08 AM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Cat Sci writes:

Oh man, I'm so sorry that my opinion is different from yours

I love how if someone doesn't tow the party line, then they're evil and they want you to die. Such tolerance.

Why should we tolerate bad ideas?

And it really depends on who you ask... Not that I trust heritage.org, but they're (of course) saying the opposite:

From Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance:

Apples and oranges. Private insurance also includes millions and millions of healthy and young people who don't send in any claims. Medicare has tons and tons of old people where nearly 100% are going to have claims during the year.

Don't we all. Again, you can continue to trust that this may happen, but I don't have to. And I don't.

You do have the freedom to be wrong. That is true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-18-2016 11:47 AM Taq has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 119 of 178 (794622)
11-18-2016 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Taq
11-17-2016 5:25 PM


Re: Myths Americans Believe About Healthcare
Yes, they do come out of your pocket whether you want to admit it or not. If they weren't paying for insurance they could be paying that money to you directly.

"Could", but not. You're arguing semantics. My benefits do not affect my paycheck like my taxes do. It could be different, yes, but that is what is it.

You can find private hospitals with the same problems.

I've been in ~100 hospitals all across the country. The VA hospitals are the worst. It's not just me saying this stuff:

From VA review finds 'significant and chronic' failures:

quote:
In a scathing appraisal, a review ordered by President Barack Obama of the troubled Veterans Affairs health care system concludes that medical care for veterans is beset by "significant and chronic system failures," substantially verifying problems raised by whistleblowers and internal and congressional investigators.

A summary of the review by deputy White House chief of staff Rob Nabors says the Veterans Health Administration must be restructured and that a "corrosive culture" has hurt morale and affected the timeliness of health care.

...

Rep. Jeff Miller, the Republican chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, said the report was a late but welcome response from the White House and vowed to work with the administration to fix the system.

"It appears the White House has finally come to terms with the serious and systemic VA health care problems we've been investigating and documenting for years," he said in a statement.


I'm having trouble getting a good source for the report, but here's a pdf download that I unfortunately cannot copy and paste from.

Are you going to demonstrate that the US government running healthcare would cost more money than it does now? Or are you going to just keep asserting it without any evidence?

Neither.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 11-17-2016 5:25 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Taq, posted 11-18-2016 12:35 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 120 of 178 (794623)
11-18-2016 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Taq
11-18-2016 11:20 AM


Re: Try reading what Trump said it has been on his website since March
Why should we tolerate bad ideas?

I'm sure if a True ChristianTM came here saying they were against gay marriage because they thought it was a bad idea, y'all would accept that as a good excuse and not berate them for their intolerance.

You guys are too much!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 11-18-2016 11:20 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Taq, posted 11-18-2016 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017