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.
Supporters of President Obama’s signature law loudly tout its one success—an increase in the number of insured Americans. Regrettably, it did so by reducing access to medical care for all Americans.
...
ObamaCare has aided the growth of the malignancy that is destroying U.S. health care: a massive federal administrative apparatus and regulatory machine that diverts trillions—not millions or even billions—of “health care” dollars away from health care services to pay itself, to pay the health care bureaucracy.
Supporters of President Obama’s signature law loudly tout its one success—an increase in the number of insured Americans. Regrettably, it did so by reducing access to medical care for all Americans.
...
ObamaCare has aided the growth of the malignancy that is destroying U.S. health care: a massive federal administrative apparatus and regulatory machine that diverts trillions—not millions or even billions—of “health care” dollars away from health care services to pay itself, to pay the health care bureaucracy.
...
I like it. I also think it needs to be removed from the employer, and full control and freedom of choice given to individuals and families.
If people started taking control of their healthcare, prices would drop and satisfaction would increase.
It's such a nonsense cop out when your argument is that it's a job for the states, not the Fed gov't. Whenever I hear that, I know you don't have an actual argument.
It's such a nonsense cop out when your argument is that it's a job for the states, not the Fed gov't. Whenever I hear that, I know you don't have an actual argument.
And your argument that healthcare is/should be a federal responsibility is... What?
I could, and have written volumes on this dating back to the Hillary-Bernie race. I'm not going to repeat it but there is a solution without train wrecking the infrastructure that practitioners, facilities, and companies have had to invest HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in.
It's such a nonsense cop out when your argument is that it's a job for the states, not the Fed gov't. Whenever I hear that, I know you don't have an actual argument.
I'm surprised you didn't say it was a human right that should be overseen by the UN.
Just because you need a nanny doesn't mean that the rest of us do.
No industry ever lowers prices on their own out of the goodness of the hearts. They collude to keep prices as high as possible.
If the government got serious about regulating health care anf prescription drug prices then people might actually afford it.
But how can you spite middle class people because they dont have $30,000 lying around for 8-week chemotherapy treatment?
And how can you say its retirees faults for not being able to afford $2,000-$3000 a month in medications?
That's twisted, immoral and quite frankly wicked.
I am going to repost this from the OP...
ObamaCare has aided the growth of the malignancy that is destroying U.S. health care: a massive federal administrative apparatus and regulatory machine that diverts trillions—not millions or even billions—of “health care” dollars away from health care services to pay itself, to pay the health care bureaucracy.
Costs will come down in simply removing the feds from the equation.
Also - many people in health care want to help others, which is why they go into health care in the first place - and part of helping others is making prices affordable so people can use their services.
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.