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.
Also, Trump (love him or hate him) is a supporter of nationalized healthcare and is on record in favor of it. He wouldn't oppose a well thought out bill proposed by dems.
“We must have universal healthcare,” wrote Trump. “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.”
The goal of health care reform, wrote Trump, should be a system that looks a lot like Canada. “Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork,” he writes.
Right, and I still say they shouldn't be involved in negotiating for healthcare or cameras, so I'm not sure what your original point was. I'm obviously missing something.
Good analogy or not, I think its even more of a suspicious argument to somehow say that healthcare is the only thing out there that shouldn't be exposed to free market practices to drive better outcomes for customers, which is essentially the argument that I'm assuming you are making, but without using those words?
Re: bold: I am not somehow saying ... This was my first response to this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
I like where you're going with this line of thinking!
Also think it's entirely possible to apply a critical & creative thinking approach (as this is) to some of the underlying or root problems the US is currently facing. We've applied these strategies from our beginning, we've continued to do so throughout our history, we may need to fine-tune the balance is all. Healthcare is an excellent place to troubleshoot.
The earliest designers of the US, & after our Revolution, having experienced the abuses of Corporatism first hand (East India Company for one large example) they saw it similarly - they too mistrusted unfettered for-profits. They enacted laws throughout the colonies to limit what corporations could do, how big they could get, & how they were to act in the market, they were not considered as people, they were, legal fictive entities.
Let's face it, the profit-driven incentive is to charge as much money as possible for providing as few goods & services as possible. Where's the end-game with that as sole driving force?
The US, has a 'mixed economy' as its 'business model' as do many other successful Countries, defined something like this:
"A mixed economy is defined as an economic system consisting of a mixture of either markets and economic planning, public ownership and private ownership, or markets and economic interventionism."
Each Country seeks to develop an economy which works for them, there is no ONE way to accomplish. Capitalism works in various underlying governmental forms. It's the balance that's significant, for example, identifying the right balance between the market, government, private sector & non-profit organizations. These different parts can work together, complementing each other & resulting in a 'product' that is improved. Focusing the all in one area tends to result in becoming off-balanced. Finding that 'sweet spot' is somewhat of an art, so to speak, conditions change (as always as part of the human condition) & fine-tuning that balance is a never-ending & significant factor in quality & success. It's a balancing act, that comes along with the awareness the most suitable balance changes from time to time, & from place to place.
I've politely asked you to clarify some of the assertions you've made & you continue to refuse to do so.
I normally vote GOP but was hoping the Democrats would give us a successful model from around the world in 2009 but instead they gave us the horrible concept known as Obamacare. We need a national discussion and come up with a consensus.
They have one in the works now that looks a lot better, at first glance.
Never looked before, but apparently 1967, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1981, 1985, and 1986.
The Medicare tax is hardly the only tax/fee/penalty in question here anyway.
When we are discussing extending Medicare to all it is.
So, no increase in your taxes on Medicare for what, 30 yrs now? Not a bad record.Certainly not indicative of the government constantly attempting to use Medicare to get more money out of the US taxpayer.
Only if I wanted/needed the same exact groceries, camera, clothes, and furniture as everyone else, and needed to purchase them at the same time as everyone else....meaning zero choice. Horrible argument.
What if having choice actually increases costs for the nation? What if having no choice is actually more efficient to administer and have no overhead?
Take the example of TV. Satellite companies used to bundle a gazillion channels to their packages. People demanded skinny packages, where people can select the channels they want. Yet, paradoxically, when that happened, the costs did not diminish as much as one expected, some more obscured channels disappeared (they were paid by the pooled money from subscriptions), and the cost per channel went up.
Who cares, the subscriber still saved money, and he/she won't miss the channels he doesn't watch anyways. I agree and I still prefer having the option in TV. But unlike TV, the more obscure/infrequent selections in healthcare may not be so optional for a populace. It's now a matter of life and death for someone instead of entertainment.
Insurance companies, no matter what they say, will not regard us as individuals with individual needs. They see us as pooled risks. The more you divide the pool, the more they have to calculate, administer, and develop tools to assess the risk. That effort costs money -it's less efficient for the entire population. Not to mention those less frequent options may be simply phased out -their small population pools won't be able to afford it. If those options stay in place, then they're ultimately either paid for by the government, or added into overhead for other clients outside of that pool. The insurance companies are not in it to see their profit margins reduce.
Now imagine what happens if you have 0 choice. Nada, you get what everyone else gets and there is no ifs or buts about it. The young and healthy have to pay, pregnant women, the old and ill have to as well (for this example, everyone pays the same amount). Why the heck would the young subsidize the old? Well, (1) they won't see their premiums increase once they're old, so eventually it equals out, (2) if they needed a rare treatment, that will have more chance of being offered, and they won't have to go backrupt to get it, (3) the insurance company sees no complexity in calculations or management, everyone is in 1 pool.
So for the above, the cost / treatment ratio is actually reduced. Of course some people may benefit more than others, but cost as a whole for the nation is reduced, and you get to spend the money elsewhere -like reducing that fat debt. Not to mention, if you give people access to basic care, the chance of them requiring advanced care is much reduced -saving EVERYONE more money long-term.
Now let's take it one more step. Imagine there is only 1 insurance company, who's not in it to make money. Their shareholders are the public at large. And they get to negotiate with the weight of the entire market.
Of course, real life may not be as rosy as what I described above. There will be obstacles, there will be kinks to iron out, but it is the tried and true method used (and cherished) by all other western nations. And they ain't going back.
People can say my needs vs others all they want. But the government cannot cater to the individuals, that's simply unworkable and irresponsible. They have to choose the system that benefits the most people. And eventually, every single person has to think that way as well -you may not need it now, but **** happens. And who knows, your children and grandchildren may need it as well one day.
And the rest of us shouldn't need to pay more for health insurance than we pay for rent or even a modest mortgage.
BTW, you can't generally get to work without a car, car insurance and fuel. So to answer your question, a car is more important since without going to work, you wouldn't be able to pay for anything else.
Just what everyone wants... higher taxes and more $ going to government.
Actually it would be an increase in the Medicare portion of your already existing tax, offset by savings in not having to pay insurance premiums for HC, and it would create a nationwide pool of mostly healthy people to pay for the sick ones, which is the basic survival scheme of health insurance. More healthy payers than sick users.
But dont tax your brain thinking about it all too deeply. Easier to just smack your head and pretend you've put some thought into it.
When we are discussing extending Medicare to all it is.
So, no increase in your taxes on Medicare for what, 30 yrs now? Not a bad record.Certainly not indicative of the government constantly attempting to use Medicare to get more money out of the US taxpayer.
You implied it never happened, I showed multiple instances where it did happen. Don't get all smug and twist that into a "win" for yourself. I never said they "used Mddicare to get more money out of the US taxpayer." I said that the US government uses taxes as a revenue base. Have you missed the fact that there are entire political campaigns based on "tax the rich" schemes?
Also, I see you are excluding the Obamacare penalty for not having insurance, thats a pretty easy one without even trying to think of other instances, and is why I mentioned penalties and fees, not just taxes.
You implied it never happened, I showed multiple instances where it did happen. Don't get all smug and twist that into a "win" for yourself. I never said they "used Mddicare to get more money out of the US taxpayer." I said that the US government uses taxes as a revenue base. Have you missed the fact that there are entire political campaigns based on "tax the rich" schemes?
Also, I see you are excluding the Obamacare penalty for not having insurance, thats a pretty easy one without even trying to think of other instances, and is why I mentioned penalties and fees, not just taxes.
I implied that there hasnt been any major Medicare tax increases in a while, so buzz off. I asked a question. The answer , apparently, is that the Medicare tax hasnt increased in 30 yrs. I knew it hadnt increased in my memory, but I really had no idea how long it had been since any increase. However long, its been a while, so Medicare obviously isnt a scheme to gain more $$$ from the US taxpayer.
Which was my point.
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.
I like where you're going with this line of thinking! 
