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.
It's designed to make profits for Wall Street and that aspect needs removed.
So, you'd rather have a single payer system the government controls from top to bottom... right?
Look how well that worked out for Vets. If a single payer solution can become so corrupt for a couple million vets, imagine what DC would do with 350M citizens. Talk about people dying while waiting to see a doctor. Welcome to Venezuela, bring plenty of toilet paper to the waiting room.
That's the problem with profit-based health coverage. They have to increase profits year over year or their stock will not rise. By definition, they have to increase costs every year.
Socialize losses and privatize profits, it's the American way.
You can't "privatize profits". The only things that can make profits, are private entities: companies, corporation, individuals etc.
As for the losses, I think what you mean are "expensive things". Paying for pre-existing conditions is hugely expensive. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing. But it means that that is the part of these so-called "government insurance" plans, that is driving the costs sky-high.
And it's not being sold that way. The politicians are carefully NOT pointing out that people's insistence on covering pre-existing conditions, is the reason the costs are skyrocketing. No, the pols are just saying, "No, we can cut the costs down!".
You can either eliminate the coverage for pre-existing conditions, or you can disguise who is paying for them. Politicians are doing the latter, by transferring wealth from those who earn more, to those who earn less or none... and act that is completely unconstitutional. But done all the time.
If government were to set up such a program (PE conditions only), they should advertise it as, "This covers PE conditions. Now no one will ever be denied coverage or treatment due to pre-existing conditions. And it will cost every household in the U.S. $700/month. (Or whatever the amount is.) And we don't think it's right to forcibly take money from your neighbors and friends to pay for your household's coverage, so YOU will have to pay that amount yourself."
Stop trying to disguise what you are doing. Name the benefits and costs in the same sentence. Then let's see how many Americans really want a government health program that covers PE conditions.
The liberty of the people to male their own decisions and live with the consequences, is one of the hallmarks of free Americans.
Nope. Thats where you also get innovation, improved services, and competition. Basic health insurance to cover broken bones, blood tests, stitches, minor surgery is perfectly fine in a for profit model.
Many innovations come out of Germany. If they can do it, so can we. The scientists don't care who is paying them.
We just had a very popular movie about the work of a few female scientists that worked for the government, not Wall Street.
They did some pretty cool things.
Quote:
Catastrophic risks, life and death conditions, sure, figure out something else for that.
Wall St. isn't always the boogie man / monster people like to make it out to be. Heck, some of our very own American citizens have wished for their other citizens to be killed in war before, so there are definitely bigger monsters out there than Wall St.
We can deal with more than one monster at a time. It might be noted, Wall Street is a big reason we have perpetual war.
Hey, just do it. Stop covering pre-existing conditions, take away coverage from millions, increase prices three to five times for seniors, just do it. This is the GOP way.
When a liberal fanatic loses the argument, he frequently starts ranting hysterically like this.
Basic health insurance to cover broken bones, blood tests, stitches, minor surgery is perfectly fine in a for profit model.
Your model is good for providing healthcare as long as people don't need a lot of healthcare? Sure, OK, nice and all, but isn't it a little lacking in ambition?
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.
