Liberals, how would we pay for public health care? (premium, dollars, economy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are effectively eliminating 16% of the private sector and the tax revenues on the profits that go with it. So how do we fund public health care while maintaining your beloved military industrial complex, corporate welfare, bailouts, and pro-war agenda?
Why don't you start from the beginning? How do you assert that we "effectively [are] eliminating 16% of the private sector?" What are you talking about, the ACA?
If you are talking about the Affordable Care Act, then you must -- or should know, that the ACA requires that private individuals and private business purchase health insurance from private insurance companies. The health care (e.g. medical) will be provided by the same private hospitals and private doctors that are currently providing medical care. Only a complete idiot would describe that as "eliminating the private sector."
If you read anything about the ACA, you should also know that it saves the government money, not spends more.
Thus, this thread, with all its baseless assertions, doesn't even make any sense.
You are effectively eliminating 16% of the private sector and the tax revenues on the profits that go with it. So how do we fund public health care while maintaining your beloved military industrial complex, corporate welfare, bailouts, and pro-war agenda?
No more loans to "green" companies. Should save billions.....
Why don't you start from the beginning? How do you assert that we "effectively [are] eliminating 16% of the private sector?" What are you talking about, the ACA?
If you are talking about the Affordable Care Act, then you must -- or should know, that the ACA requires that private individuals and private business purchase health insurance from private insurance companies. The health care (e.g. medical) will be provided by the same entities that are currently providing medical care.
If you read anything about the ACA, you should also know that it saves the government money, not spends more.
Thus, this thread, with all the assertions, doesn't even make any sense.
I'm talking about a 100% take over of health care by Your Lord and Savior, the Federal Government.
I'm quite familiar with EMTALA, and it's part of the problem. People can afford a 20 dollar copy to see a doctor in the ER.
I didn't grow up with my mother, but my sisters did. There were weeks she got by on less then 20 dollars.
Not everyone can afford a 20 dollar copay, and thats only a drop in the bucket of the cost of an ER visit. Hell my ER copay with insurance is 100 dollars.
Is that right? Gee, I thought that 'insurance' was a way to 'spread the risk' and thus lower costs for all within the insured group.
So, you don't understand how insurance works.
Insurance lowers the cost for some while inreasing the cost for others.
Insurance is risk management. If you pay for insurance you're either hoping to need medical treatment that someone else will pay for or you enjoy paying for other people's medical treatment.
Quote:
You really should not quote just a part of a person's posting. Post it all, so people may see the context of the isolated statement.
The forum has an imbedded link whenever a post is quoted for just that reason.
Insurance lowers the cost for some while inreasing the cost for others.
Insurance is risk management. If you pay for insurance you're either hoping to need medical treatment that someone else will pay for or you enjoy paying for other people's medical treatment.
The forum has an imbedded link whenever a post is quoted for just that reason.
Example, please, of how insurance 'lowers the costs for some while increasing the cost for others'.
I'm talking about a 100% take over of health care by Your Lord and Savior, the Federal Government.
Ok genius, how is it a government takeover if all the services (e.g. insurance, medical, etc.) are provided by private companies?
What you are completely misunderstanding (and likely deliberately misunderstanding) is that the ACA is not government health care or government provided insurance. The ACA is essentially regulations telling insurance companies what they can and cannot do and mandating that everyone buy insurance from an insurance company. Psst, that's not a government takeover. To say that mandating insurance is a "government takeover" is like saying that my State has taken over auto insurance by mandating that all cars be insured. [Sarcasm] OMG! Mayor Bloomberg has completely taken over all restaurants in NYC because NYC law requires restaurants to have insurance! Socialism!!![/Sarcasm]
Example, please, of how insurance 'lowers the costs for some while increasing the cost for others'.
For instance, I have private health insurance.
I also have private automobile insurance.
I also have insurance on my house.
How are these 'instances' relevant to anything?
Suppose one pays $150 a month for insurance.
If that person never uses any health care their costs are increased.
If that person uses less than $150 a month in health care their costs are increased.
If that person uses more than $150 a month in health care their costs are decreased.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
