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.
So 7% of planes could crash and all would be well?
What percentage of consumer electronics (phones, computers) would be expected to not be "100% solution"? I think the percentage of non-defective products in many categories is higher than 98%.
How about internet connection and web sites - would you be happy with a web site being down 7 to 20% of the time?
I've been in a lot businesses during my lifetime and never heard this one!
about 96+ percent INSURED .....and the remainder covered, for a total of 100%.
Might as well go to single payer since we are effectively there. Oh, MA is #1 in the USA in health care and top ranked in just about everything else.
Here's the difference - and this is pretty obvious low-hanging fruit: the people who pay for air travel are willing to pay for a nearly 100% solution voluntarily. In fact, they insist on it. If you don't pay, you don't fly. With health care, half the population (people who actually pay taxes) are being asked to foot the bill for a 100% solution by force - and the non-paying half still get to reap the benefits.
I wouldn't be happy with 7 to 20% internet downtime, but everyone who pays for internet is willing to foot the extra bill for reliability. In other words, we've decided that reliability beyond the point of diminishing returns is worth the extra money.
Many of us who would have to foot the bill for 100% health coverage are unwilling to do so. Frankly, the 50% of the population who aren't paying taxes don't get a say in this. It's easy to want all kinds of luxuries when someone else is paying for it.
You've been living under a rock if you're not familiar with the concept of diminishing returns.
It's a widely embraced business concept that the 100% solution isn't cost effective. In fact, the point of diminishing returns is around 80%. At 93%, we should call the health care situation a success and focus on more important issues. Rubio is correct.
First of all, the 93% is not out of the total, got it? In other words not everybody has insurance right now.
Here's the difference - and this is pretty obvious low-hanging fruit: the people who pay for air travel are willing to pay for a nearly 100% solution voluntarily. In fact, they insist on it. If you don't pay, you don't fly. With health care, half the population (people who actually pay taxes) are being asked to foot the bill for a 100% solution by force - and the non-paying half still get to reap the benefits.
I wouldn't be happy with 7 to 20% internet downtime, but everyone who pays for internet is willing to foot the extra bill for reliability. In other words, we've decided that reliability beyond the point of diminishing returns is worth the extra money.
Many of us who would have to foot the bill for 100% health coverage are unwilling to do so. Frankly, the 50% of the population who aren't paying taxes don't get a say in this. It's easy to want all kinds of luxuries when someone else is paying for it.
You've been living under a rock if you're not familiar with the concept of diminishing returns.
You are footing the bill now. With a universal health system you likely would pay less. Possibly much less, looking at what other countries pay.
Here's the difference - and this is pretty obvious low-hanging fruit: the people who pay for air travel are willing to pay for a nearly 100% solution voluntarily. In fact, they insist on it. If you don't pay, you don't fly. With health care, half the population (people who actually pay taxes) are being asked to foot the bill for a 100% solution by force - and the non-paying half still get to reap the benefits.
I wouldn't be happy with 7 to 20% internet downtime, but everyone who pays for internet is willing to foot the extra bill for reliability. In other words, we've decided that reliability beyond the point of diminishing returns is worth the extra money.
Many of us who would have to foot the bill for 100% health coverage are unwilling to do so. Frankly, the 50% of the population who aren't paying taxes don't get a say in this. It's easy to want all kinds of luxuries when someone else is paying for it.
You've been living under a rock if you're not familiar with the concept of diminishing returns.
How is "higher effective tax rate" of the working uninsured reaping a benefit?
Insurance is gambling.
IF government imposes the obligation to cover pre-existing conditions, it ceases to be gambling.
THEN it becomes a sucker's pool, where the healthy subsidize the sick.
That would explain the necessity for government making it mandatory.
Anyway, Obamacare is failing under it's own weight. It's no longer affordable, and the Insurance carriers are dropping like flies. And, if the answer is single payer, California already found that would be impossible to afford.
"Obamacare's exchanges could soon be out of health insurers.
This month, UnitedHealth -- the largest U.S. insurer -- announced that it would no longer sell exchange plans in New Jersey in 2017. It has now withdrawn from 27 states. Last year, UnitedHealth lost about $475 million on the exchanges; this year, it's projecting $500 million in losses." https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi.../#562e26f21cee
"The California Business Roundtable responded to a legislative analysis Monday that said SB 562, a single-payer health care bill by Sens. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), will cost California $400 billion annually to implement. CBRT President Rob Lapsley says “there is no responsible way to pay for this proposal.”
"Let’s look at the facts: California’s 2017-18 budget is estimated at $180 billion." https://ivn.us/2017/05/23/california...yer-price-tag/
How is "higher effective tax rate" of the working uninsured reaping a benefit?
Wow. You resorted to using the "effective tax rate" excuse right out of the gate. I thought this worn out obfuscation tactic would surface later on, when desperation set in.
Absolute dollars are the only metric that counts. I pay around $70K per year in income tax. I don't care if you earn $10K and pay 80% of that in taxes. You're paying a fraction of what I do, hence I'm subsidizing you. I'm paying paying more than my fair share. You, on the other hand, are a parasite.
According to this plan a 60 year old making 26k a year would have to pay 13-16k in premiums after rebates.
That's a sad sad state of affair in the richest nation of the world.
Holy f**k that's insane! How can anyone consider that a reasonable price for healthcare?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova
Many are young people who don't want health insurance or forced to get insurance or pay a fine by the Federal government.
Having young people opt out of health insurance is the issue - insurance pools work when there's enough healthy paying in to subsidise the sick, that's why everyone needs to be paying in. And only an idiot would think they don't need health insurance - illness and accidents can strike anyone at any time.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40726
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
It's a widely embraced business concept that the 100% solution isn't cost effective. In fact, the point of diminishing returns is around 80%. At 93%, we should call the health care situation a success and focus on more important issues. Rubio is correct.
Ya got anything saying it's a widely held belief that healthcare's primary goal should be profit and not peoples' health?
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.
