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.
The compassion on this thread is amazing. /s I'm tired of saying I hope it doesn't happen to you. I can't wait for some of you to develop health problems that are difficult to control as you get older.
Yeah, but by then your irresponsible beliefs will have bankrupted the country.
I'm not necessarily going to dive into my views on Obamacare, but as a conservative here's some things I look at in regards to healthcare:
One, we need to reform the patent laws around pharmaceutical development so that instead of one drugmaker having exclusive rights to produce a drug, the formula goes out on the open market with the creator getting a royalty (like say 25%) of all profits from the drug if another drug maker sells it. This way, the free market can work it's price cutting magic by having more companies compete to produce drugs.
Two, let's start getting more doctors out there by offering to pay off med school debt and introducing tort reform. By having more people enter the medical profession, you'll have prices come down for medical care. Again, the free market.
You're right, you didn't ask for anything. You demanded it. I don't care if you volunteer yourself, you volunteered the rest of us with you, which you oddly think is within your right to do. Then you come on here and write posts about how it's OK because "we" can afford it and blah blah blah. If you wanted me to "have my free choice," then I choose not to fund your crazy liberal ideas. But since you weren't being honest when you were writing that, now what?
Clever how you try to blame conservatives for Obamacare. Got anything else up your sleeve?
I specifically want(ed) to give you YOUR choice in the matter. I specifically asked nothing from YOU. And specifically exclude you from a public option if that is your choice (option).
Obamacare by name means you know who his responsible, but that does not mean it had no roots in conservative thought.
Hopefully, you'll fit right in! Wo are you to decide this?
Sorry, I'm out of empathy for you people who think you'll be healthy forever!
The Incidental Economist has addressed these high risk pools, and they have not been very successful. They still require central subsidies. A different color skin but still a cat.
I specifically want(ed) to give you YOUR choice in the matter. I specifically asked nothing from YOU. And specifically exclude you from a public option if that is your choice (option).
Obamacare by name means you know who his responsible, but that does not mean it had no roots in conservative thought.
I know, it's like with all liberals. Like they go "you MUST fund Medicare, but then, why, you are free to decide not to use it! See how generous I am? I am all about freedom!" In this case, you're like "your taxes MUST fund Obamacare, but nobody says you must use it! I am a patriot!" LOL
I'm not necessarily going to dive into my views on Obamacare, but as a conservative here's some things I look at in regards to healthcare:
One, we need to reform the patent laws around pharmaceutical development so that instead of one drugmaker having exclusive rights to produce a drug, the formula goes out on the open market with the creator getting a royalty (like say 25%) of all profits from the drug if another drug maker sells it. This way, the free market can work it's price cutting magic by having more companies compete to produce drugs.
Two, let's start getting more doctors out there by offering to pay off med school debt and introducing tort reform. By having more people enter the medical profession, you'll have prices come down for medical care. Again, the free market.
Why would someone go to the trouble and expense of developing a drug for a puny 25% royalty instead of a 100% cut? I don't know if you're aware of this, but developing a drug takes sometimes more than a decade and can cost billions of dollars as an average. They should be rewarded for their innovation.
Also, we have enough doctors. They're just all in major cities because nobody wants to live out in the sticks. The reason healthcare costs so much isn't physician salaries. It's because everyone expects the highest level of care with all of the best medicines and specialists seeing them. Nobody will go for even one cent less than the maximum. So they want the best at no cost, which is hardly the free market.
Agree with tort reform.
[EDIT: I should specify we have enough doctors for paying customers. We don't have enough for everyone in the US, but that's the actual problem. We have tens of millions of non-paying patients who are like "so who takes care of me again?"]
I'm not necessarily going to dive into my views on Obamacare, but as a conservative here's some things I look at in regards to healthcare:
One, we need to reform the patent laws around pharmaceutical development so that instead of one drugmaker having exclusive rights to produce a drug, the formula goes out on the open market with the creator getting a royalty (like say 25%) of all profits from the drug if another drug maker sells it. This way, the free market can work it's price cutting magic by having more companies compete to produce drugs.
Two, let's start getting more doctors out there by offering to pay off med school debt and introducing tort reform. By having more people enter the medical profession, you'll have prices come down for medical care. Again, the free market.
One, have Medicare bargain on price. Too much central over reach and new drugs won't happen.
Two, more docs does NOT mean lower costs via competition. For several reasons. First off, for the most part docs fees are preset by 3rd parties. And second, as so much medicine in most any locale does not get done, if there are more available docs, more will get done. Easier access for patients and more gets done. Plus docs have more than your usual job control over their yearly income. There are just too may legitimate and less than legitimate medical situations for docs to pad their bottom lines. And very typically docs will tend to satisfy their income desires. Although as more docs are employed, the trend on all this is headed downward. But then the employers like hospitals figure out how to pad their bottom lines...
I know, it's like with all liberals. Like they go "you MUST fund Medicare, but then, why, you are free to decide not to use it! See how generous I am? I am all about freedom!" In this case, you're like "your taxes MUST fund Obamacare, but nobody says you must use it! I am a patriot!" LOL
If I were king, I would have us a public option, leading to Medicare. And let you and the relative free market go with private HC as you desire. Then you would not pay Medicare tax. And probably work with an HSA and catastrophic. Or whatever.
But that transition on a national scale would have to take at least a whole generation.
If I were king, I would have us a public option, leading to Medicare. And let you and the relative free market go with private HC as you desire. Then you would not pay Medicare tax. And probably work with an HSA and catastrophic. Or whatever.
But that transition on a national scale would have to take at least a whole generation.
That's what I said you would say. You want the public option -- which clearly requires taxpayer funding -- and then you would magnanimously allow the people who fund the public option to go get their own private insurance, meaning they get to pay twice. Is that supposed to be clever so I don't notice what you want?
That's what I said you would say. You want the public option -- which clearly requires taxpayer funding -- and then you would magnanimously allow the people who fund the public option to go get their own private insurance, meaning they get to pay twice. Is that supposed to be clever so I don't notice what you want?
In the end those taking the option would have had to pay into it. Those who chose a private option, wouldn't.
That all being said, the public option kicker would be deficit spending. And that might not be available to the private side. Might not, except future bails might require just that.
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.
