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.
despite all of the snarky remarks on this topic, the best, most sensible way to pay for UHC, the way to bring costs down so that it can be paid for with less money than is now being used for a system that fails to insure many, is to take the profit motive out of HC insurance, primarily, and in some cases out of the H.C. itself. Now, please note, I am speaking of medically necessary H.C. Cosmetic procedures should be totally "for profit", and available to anyone who wishes to pay for them. A certain standard of necessity must be both determined and applied (call it rationaing, if you like), right now it is the insurance companies with a profit motive that are doing the rationing! Priority should be given to the young, end of life procedures should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, etc. That is the realistic and sensible way. . . .and I'm not even saying that private insurance companies should be eliminated. A reasonable level of profit for these organizations can be determined, their practices monitered, and their salaries kept in line with those of non-profit insurance providers. . . .strict oversight will be necessary. . . but all will be insured, costs will be dramatically reduced for all necessary care, and the rich will still be able to get all of the extras that they desire.
Okay champions and defenders of free market capitalism and competition explain to me this?
How is it competitive when just a handful of companies (4 or 5) collectively dominate at least 80% of the market?
How is it capitalism when these same companies receive not only generous tax payer subsidies, but also bailouts whenever they feel like they're losing a few billion than last year?
Its not Shaniqua from the hood that's milking our system out of billions and holding the country down.
Okay champions and defenders of free market capitalism and competition explain to me this?
How is it competitive when just a handful of companies (4 or 5) collectively dominate at least 80% of the market?
How is it capitalism when these same companies receive not only generous tax payer subsidies, but also bailouts whenever they feel like they're losing a few billion than last year?
Its not Shaniqua from the hood that's milking our system out of billions and holding the country down.
good post, and thanks for taking Shaniqua off the hook, I was worried about her. . . she must be rolling in dough, supporting 3 kids on $80.00 a week!
despite all of the snarky remarks on this topic, the best, most sensible way to pay for UHC, the way to bring costs down so that it can be paid for with less money than is now being used for a system that fails to insure many, is to take the profit motive out of HC insurance, primarily, and in some cases out of the H.C. itself. Now, please note, I am speaking of medically necessary H.C. Cosmetic procedures should be totally "for profit", and available to anyone who wishes to pay for them. A certain standard of necessity must be both determined and applied (call it rationaing, if you like), right now it is the insurance companies with a profit motive that are doing the rationing! Priority should be given to the young, end of life procedures should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, etc. That is the realistic and sensible way. . . .and I'm not even saying that private insurance companies should be eliminated. A reasonable level of profit for these organizations can be determined, their practices monitered, and their salaries kept in line with those of non-profit insurance providers. . . .strict oversight will be necessary. . . but all will be insured, costs will be dramatically reduced for all necessary care, and the rich will still be able to get all of the extras that they desire.
There have been some proposals for health cooperatives that might deserve more attention. More here and here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717
good post, and thanks for taking Shaniqua off the hook, I was worried about her. . . she must be rolling in dough, supporting 3 kids on $80.00 a week!
If Shaniqua looks anything like Alicia Keyes or Beyonce, I would gladly pay for her benefits, along with,..., er,.., any other needs that might be necessary. All in the name of concerned citizenship, of course.
tax all products un-nutritiously high in processed sugar, sodium, fructose corn syrup; tax McDonald's, Dominoes, BK and all the fast food chains; slap a big fat juicy tax on the firearms industry; and for good measure the producers and users of pollutants in our environment.
Cost of universal health care solved.
There is another glaring example that the myth of capitalism and free markets is really a sham.
This industry is actually oligopoly that begs for and receives government bailouts. Why doesn't any scream and shout about these corporate welfare queens milking the system out of tax payer money?
Those that make statements about national security should investigate the posted links.
I have always found it interesting that cheap fast food started to really grow in popularity when wages started to fall.
There is an overwhelming link between obesity and poverty.
Countries with less income inequality have less obesity. Go figure.
It would be nice if we stopped the subsidies that Big Agra receive. They can do just fine on their own without government subsidies.
I have always found it interesting that cheap fast food started to really grow in popularity when wages started to fall.
There is an overwhelming link between obesity and poverty.
Countries with less income inequality have less obesity. Go figure.
It would be nice if we stopped the subsidies that Big Agra receive. They can do just fine on their own without government subsidies.
Agree on that point.
Eliminate the personnel, the endless studies, the tax dollar give aways and lets cut a another limb off the bureaucracy tree.
Our government is morbidly obese.
Is that why every specail interest like the unions in the democratic party refused provisions to pay a tax on earnigns not taxed ? Look at the healthcare debate and you see deomcratic special interest saying don't tax me and getting speical provisions for their states by sellig their votes.Where is my free stuff paid for by others is their battle cry.
Is that why every specail interest like the unions in the democratic party refused provisions to pay a tax on earnigns not taxed ? Look at the healthcare debate and you see deomcratic special interest saying don't tax me and getting speical provisions for their states by sellig their votes.Where is my free stuff paid for by others is their battle cry.
Despite all the delusional fantasies courtesy of the Rushie and Fox Show, this video is an oasis of reality in the Beck fabricated alternate reality that pervades way too much of the economic and political debate in this country.
1. BOTH Gipper and Senior had enough sense that the surest way to reduce debt, especially during a recession is,...., TO RAISE TAXES,.., STUPID.
2. It was under a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS along with Senior as President, that PayGo was established. This meant that all programs that can be implemented MUST BE PAID FOR IN FULL.
3. It was under a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT with a GOP congress that we had one of the few SURPLUSES in recent American history.
4. It was under Junior and the GOP Congress that fiscal responsibility was tossed out the window, and irresponsibility was became the name of the game.
5. The revelation WHY President Obama was so focused on health reform, instead of the economy, for much of his freshman year. It was a pretty good reason, even though many, (myself included) did not agree with the way he want about things.
In conclusion, given 2, 3, 4 & 5, one side of the aisle really has as much claim to fiscal responsibility as one media entity has to fair & balanced,.., in short ZERO.
And those yelling about the debt, cannot cry and whine about taxes. Do the math, debt is created by revenues being lower than spending. The way to reduce debt is to either cut spending or raise taxes.
Since most of the spending goes to health care for seniors (the most active voting demographic) plus one entitlement (yes despite their current rants against entitlements) that was created by the administration of fiscal irresponsibility and also defense, spending reduction is not likely to happen since it would politically costly for any party and politician.
The tax cuts under Junior were generally for the rich. Yes that 1% of the population making 250K and over that feels they are middle classers just barely making ends meet.
So either they have to be the class of fiscal responsibility and pay tax rates they did a long, long time ago (wow a decade feels like a century ago) OR they will be the ones dooming generations of Americans, our children, grandchildren, great gran,.., well you get the idea.
Why is the liberal solution for everything to TAX the masses and hand over entitlements to the few?
I don't see how your generic response relates to the OP. In fact, it contradicts.
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.
