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 keep hearing that. My husband is from UK and that's one UHC that I know. If you look at it, there is no job growth in UK. Practically everybody that we know who are engineer or software engineers, are either here in USA, or working for USA companies in UK, or being laid off a long time, more than 15 years without a job. So is that what we want for USA?
There is absolutely no correlation between UHC and employment. The NHS was created in 1948. If there was a correlation then nobody would be employed by now. That would also be true of the economy of every other developed country which has UHC. You are going to have to do a lot better than facile arguments like that.
Yes sir, that's the way to save money on health insurance "cherry pick out the high users", that is just brilliant. We are right back to where we were before the ACA, when the plan for healthcare in this country was "don't get sick and if you do, die quickly" So the Republican plan really wasn't to "repeal and replace", just repeal ..oops
You don't understand what I am saying sleepy. Cherry pick here doesn'tmean to not give care. It means their cost is too high to be covered in just the individual market pool. You need something far larger to spread the cost over, like state tax or medicaid tax.
The fairest way is to spread out these high risk user costs among as many people so the cost per person to pay for these folks can be lower, and you save the individual market. If you believe in single payer, you should be happy with this plan as it will make transitioning to single payer easier in the future.
You don't understand what I am saying sleepy. Cherry pick here doesn'tmean to not give care. It means their cost is too high to be covered in just the individual market pool. You need something far larger to spread the cost over, like state tax or medicaid tax.
The fairest way is to spread out these high risk user costs among as many people so the cost per person to pay for these folks can be lower, and you save the individual market. If you believe in single payer, you should be happy with this plan as it will make transitioning to single payer easier in the future.
That is why we have Medicare. Older people tend to use more health care resources than the young. Insurance companies cannot make money on them and older people could never afford the premiums. So the taxpayer picks up the tab. It's a great deal for the insurance companies.
There is absolutely no correlation between UHC and employment. The NHS was created in 1948. If there was a correlation then nobody would be employed by now. That would also be true of the economy of every other developed country which has UHC. You are going to have to do a lot better than facile arguments like that.
I think the high tax reduced growth. USA is top 3 in GDP growth behind China and India, both emerging markets. No countries from Europe.
That is why we have Medicare. Older people tend to use more health care resources than the young. Insurance companies cannot make money on them and older people could never afford the premiums. So the taxpayer picks up the tab. It's a great deal for the insurance companies.
Yes, and medicaid for the chronically I'll so insurers aren't forced to pay for it.
What single payer supporters don't realize is the only thing keeping us from it is the tradition of employer provided health insurance in this country. You eliminate that, you will have single payer.
Yes, and medicaid for the chronically I'll so insurers aren't forced to pay for it.
What single payer supporters don't realize is the only thing keeping us from it is the tradition of employer provided health insurance in this country. You eliminate that, you will have single payer.
Even in countries who have single payer, they also have employer provided health insurance. I think employer provided health insurance will always be there.
Yes, and medicaid for the chronically I'll so insurers aren't forced to pay for it.
What single payer supporters don't realize is the only thing keeping us from it is the tradition of employer provided health insurance in this country. You eliminate that, you will have single payer.
That is why I think that repealing the ACA, taking away the tax benefits of employer health insurance and, in consequence, increasing premiums, might erode support for our existing model and begin to convert ordinary Americans to a UHC model. It is also why it will be opposed by special interests, insurance companies and business.
That is why I think that repealing the ACA, taking away the tax benefits of employer health insurance and, in consequence, increasing premiums, might erode support for our existing model and begin to convert ordinary Americans to a UHC model. It is also why it will be opposed by special interests, insurance companies and business.
Even in countries who have single payer, they also have employer provided health insurance. I think employer provided health insurance will always be there.
You do realise you can have both. The UK and many others do. Everyone gets the same level of base care then, if you want more, you pay for it.
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.
