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 knew right-wingers had a problem seeing things in perspective, but this bit of nonsense is utterly ridiculous.
Last edited by bUU; 02-26-2015 at 06:19 AM..
Reason: And I used their own "news" sources for this, so any quibbling about the numbers will be immediately condemned as inane.
I knew right-wingers had a problem seeing things in perspective, but this bit of nonsense is utterly ridiculous.
I'm sorry, you have been unable to grasp my overall point. Did you have a problem when I argued that funding should come from cutting the military? You can't take one point out of many and say it's not going to work. *may* cost is also a problem. It *may* cost that much because we have refused to address the cost side. That has to be done also.
You want UHC but you are unwilling to do any of the things it would require. The "rich" can't pay an extra 1.5 trillion in taxes to pay for it.
I'm sorry, you have been unable to grasp my overall point.
Wrong. I grasped it, and highlighted its failure. I'm sorry that upset you enough to post such a vacuous reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
You want UHC but you are unwilling to do any of the things it would require.
That's a lie. If you need to lie about me personally to try to prove your point, you've pretty much made clear that there is not a shred of integrity in the perspective you're trying to peddle.
The premise of the question was flawed, if you cant see that then you are allowing yourself to be deceived by liberals appealing to your emotion.
Spoiler
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals that accept payments from Medicare to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
I think we need to bring in Canada's system into this discussion. Their health care system enjoys 90% support across the board, which means it's a good system, that they want to keep and it *works*. People are allowed to *choose* their doctors, and *everyone* gets the same treatment as anyone else, regardless of how rich or poor they are. I fail to understand why more Americans aren't demanding that we switch to such a system, which we know works, and will always work, forever - regardless of the aging of the population, economic depressions, etc. It's paid for by an extra 6% on the sales tax, which in the US can be mitigated for the poor by way of supplement payments through the Earned Income Tax Credit system.
No. Everyone pays. Period.
Even Canada has a regressive tax system to fund their UHC. As European countries already know, UHC isn't possible without the very wide tax base of a regressive tax system.
That is a lie. Federal taxes have nothing to do UHC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Even Canada has a regressive tax system to fund their UHC.
Nope. Like the United States, Canada is monetarily sovereign. Canada can pay for UHC regardless of if it collects $0 in taxes or $5 trillion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
As European countries already know, UHC isn't possible without the very wide tax base of a regressive tax system.
European countries are monetarily non-sovereign. They have to collect taxes to "fund" their UHC. Unlike Canada, EU countries have to ask the ECB for more Euros. Despite this, they still have UHC. What is our excuse?
There is no one qualified to manage a government healthcare system.
They already do---VA, medicare, medicaid, Indian Health.
This is what I would do. Private for profit insurance until 40 years old. After 40 its medicare along with supplemental coverage through for profit insurance to fill the gaps along with cost controls. If those insurance companies don't like it (they will however) they can change their name from UnitedHealthCare to General Midas car insurance Co. I would also make pharma transparent in their costs--show reason why a particular pill's cost is what it is. And while we are at it no more pharma commercials.
Wrong. I grasped it, and highlighted its failure. I'm sorry that upset you enough to post such a vacuous reply.
That's a lie. If you need to lie about me personally to try to prove your point, you've pretty much made clear that there is not a shred of integrity in the perspective you're trying to peddle.
I'm perfectly willing for people to decide on their own who has presented ways we could do this and who hasn't.
That is a lie. Federal taxes have nothing to do UHC.
Indeed, they do. How else do you think it gets funded? Spare us your endless supply of money creation theory. Becoming the next Zimbabwe isn't a solution.
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.
