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.
Actually, the refutation for your point about contracting out is simple:
But, since most people read what reporters write, and most of those reporters are as naive as most politicians about how the healthcare industry works, well... let's just say there is a lot of misinformation about how the industry works.
Yes, we all know the system is extremely complex and convoluted. And I believe the system is a bureaucratic paradise.
The only complexity in the system should be the medical stuff. Once that is elucidated payment is provided and that is the end of the story.
What is covered and what is not covered should not be a business decision, but a medical decision. And once the lawyers are removed from the equation the prices will be cheaper. Furthermore, the docs in private practice will not have to hire an entire staff just to figure out the billing and get paid. The whole thing is a ridiculous game where the privates always try to deny care.
This denial of care has gotten so bad that many doctors have to constantly make phone calls to the insurance company to explain the medical condition of the patient that is being denied care.
On one condition: everyone pays proportional to their income and nothing is refunded via tax credits
No illegals. Anyone enrolled is E-verified.
I guess that's two.
Add to that everyone pays proportional to their health. How can it be justified to rob me of my money to pay for a guy that has made a lifetime of poor health choices. While we're at it, we need universal transportation, free food, housing that costs nothing, and everyone should have to pay at the 80% tax rate. That's right, we need an 80% flat tax.
Where do you come up with this violence business? Are you trying to equate taxing to violence? I don't think people should have to raise money through violence or "Go Fund Me" or anything like that to get cancer care. I did have a friend who got cancer and had no insurance; she got on Medicaid to pay for her treatment.
I am equating it with violence. What happens if you refuse to pay? At some point they'll use violence. Taxes aren't voluntary or a simple suggestion. It's force. You may think the violence is justified, but it's still violence.
Side note: I wish politicians and activists would just come out and treat it for what it is rather than saying "we ask you to pay" or "we come together to fund..." No, that's dishonest. Just say that you're forcing everyone to do what you want.
Add to that everyone pays proportional to their health. How can it be justified to rob me of my money to pay for a guy that has made a lifetime of poor health choices. While we're at it, we need universal transportation, free food, housing that costs nothing, and everyone should have to pay at the 80% tax rate. That's right, we need an 80% flat tax.
I am equating it with violence. What happens if you refuse to pay? At some point they'll use violence. Taxes aren't voluntary or a simple suggestion. It's force. You may think the violence is justified, but it's still violence.
Can you give us an example of someone who suffered violence for refusing to pay taxes?
Yes, we all know the system is extremely complex and convoluted. And I believe the system is a bureaucratic paradise.
The only complexity in the system should be the medical stuff. Once that is elucidated payment is provided and that is the end of the story.
What is covered and what is not covered should not be a business decision, but a medical decision. And once the lawyers are removed from the equation the prices will be cheaper. Furthermore, the docs in private practice will not have to hire an entire staff just to figure out the billing and get paid. The whole thing is a ridiculous game where the privates always try to deny care.
This denial of care has gotten so bad that many doctors have to constantly make phone calls to the insurance company to explain the medical condition of the patient that is being denied care.
That is made up (not saying it has never happened but, docs don't deal with the business decisions. Ask those that post here!
And remember, THE EMPLOYER GROUP IS THE ONE THAT BUYS COVERAGE! They determine what benefits they want for THEIR EMPLOYEES!. The payor doesn't care. More benefits, higher premium, just like car insurance (last time I checked full coverage is a heck of a lot more than the state mandated liability of most states... but even in that industry each state is different. And Geico doesn't invest premiums to cover cost of the risk pool).
Car insurance and health insurance aren't fully analogous, however, there are some similarities.
I love the ideal of universal health care and the “right to access it”.
There's a problem - it's not a right. Government has criminalized or restricted access to medical care and medicine. You can only buy and sell care and medicine, by government's permission and licensing.
FIRST POINT: There is no "right" to healthcare if government requires permission (licensing) and criminalizes the unlicensed practice.
SECOND POINT: Greed was behind the push for licensing, not incompetence. Licensing created scarcity and boosted income of physicians.
THIRD POINT: Allopathic medicine was accorded the monopoly over dispensing potent medicines, and other schools of medicine were driven out or downgraded as "quackery".
FOURTH POINT: Inflated costs are directly attributed to government, abusive tort laws, monetary debasement, taxation, not to forget to mention that you cannot buy medicine without permission (prescription) bought from a government licensed person. And you can only buy it from another government licensed person, who buys his stock from other licensed entities.
If you wish UNIVERSAL and affordable health care, you must get the government out of the way.
Government is the cause for:
[] Inflation [] Administrative overhead [] Taxation [] Scarcity [] Licensing [] Litigation
How about this: UNIVERSAL health care means everyone can care for anyone to the best of their ability - and you exercise free choice.
[] Decriminalize giving health care;
[] Decriminalize the trade and possession of medicine and equipment;
[] Expand opportunities for medical education;
[] Offer credentials (not licenses) by supervised examination, regardless of where or how one learned medicine - including apprenticeships;
[] The only government function is to be a credential bank available to the public; and
[] Eliminate tort abuse with "Satisfaction guaranteed, or your money back!" - and nothing more.
Do away with licensure for health care care providers? Make the maximum penalty for quacks a simple refund for those who complain? They keep the money that they got from everyone else? Seriously? Decriminalize the trade? That makes it sound as though the practice of medicine has been criminalized! That isn't true, not for those who practice it in proper fashion. Why force people who may be in very vulnerable positions or worse, incapacitated, to research and form anopinion as to whether or not all of the myriad health care professionals that they will come into contact with meet even minimal qualifications? This would set medical science back over a century.
Last edited by robertbrianbush; 02-15-2016 at 08:13 PM..
What I would be in favor of is the following. Have a dual system. Go back to the old system pre Obamacare. But that also means no cost shifting by hospitals so that there are extra costs of Medicare tacked on to the bills of those with higher insurance.
But then, there is a second system, completely free, paid by the govt. with govt. paid doctors and drugs that are comparable to other countries like Canada that have managed care, so that the poor can afford them. It would mean probably that the govt. system would not be as fast as the private system, and that those on the public system might not get all the latest, greatest and best care, but beggars, drug addicts and all those other people sucking off the hard work of others shouldn't expect the same quality of health care as the responsible, hard working people who have jobs and support the poor. Its more like major cities with public hospitals for the indigent.
People on Medicare could access the public system, or if they could afford it, buy extra insurance so that they can use the private system.
Quite a sweeping generalization about the poor and those who have benefitted from ObamaCare!!! What about the mlions trapped in low wage jobs that do not offer health care coverage who were not beggars, drug addicts, etc. A person who works and contributes to society but benefits from ObamaCare is not someone who issucking off of the hard work of others... many of them have some of the hardest jobs out there.
Can you give us an example of someone who suffered violence for refusing to pay taxes?
Eric Garner was killed over untaxed cigarettes...
But yeah, the IRS has gone after people who refuse to pay taxes. Larken Rose was thrown in jail for a year and wrote a book on it. I'm sure there are many more.
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.
