or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by groverat

Would you contend that a business can be efficient and dead at the same time?This is not about our personal experiences. This is about whether or not we are paying attention to actual reality and noticing all of the many government institutions that are running without interruption and have been since their inception.It is not ad-hominem to attack your arguments. That is quite the opposite of ad-hominem.I said that an advantage of single-payer healthcare is that it takes...
It's not a fairy tale. For business terminations, the Wells Fargo/NFIB study uses data of the U.S. Census Bureau, which only records closures of companies with employees. Those statistics show that about half of businesses that employ people are still operating five years after they open. "I feel good about the accuracy of the startup numbers," Dennis says, "but there are undoubtedly a lot of underreported stops."The NFIB estimates that over the lifetime of a business, 39%...
It isn't.The government runs many different operations just as well as the average private concern. Actually, superior given government's inherent advantage in leadership-selection-by-the-consumer.(The private business world is pretty terrible at maintaining long-term solvency for individual units.Which major Western nation with a socialized healthcare system would you consider a "failure" relative to ours?France?UK?Sweden?Belgium?Explain, please, why "government...
What history are you talking about? We have no history with single-payer healthcare.However, we do have the example of many other nations. I have a feeling you will not address this one, though.If you've ever changed jobs and had to change insurance and, thus, lose your doctors you will understand.Explain why.
- More efficient- More accountable- More universal- Takes healthcare provision burden off of business- Takes healthcare provision acquisition off of worker- Everyone pays and everyone gains (instead of the social medicine we have now in which everyone pays and only a few gain)
If you mean the current plan as it is exists, then ... maybe.The compromise that Democrats have made has neutered reform almost entirely. Big pharm has made a deal with the White House to ensure thatYou can rest assured that, thanks to Republican desire to maintain the status quo and Democratic desire to be fucking pussies, your health insurance is not going to be noticeably cheaper unless (1) you are currently excluded from private insurance due to pre-existing illness...
That's the nature of competition.If you think we should artificially prop up the private insurance industry by keeping the people from collectively bargaining under a public system then you are against competition.What have we lost if the majority of private health insurance crumbles because a cheaper option comes online?UPS and FedEXprivate schoolsprivate securityEvian and OzarkaI believe it because it happens.You're dodging the point, which is that socialized medicine...
It doesn't replace the private sector health care industry. In absolutely no sense does any of the proposed reform do that.You aren't actually arguing against my point, which is that there was nothing replaced. Seniors covered by Social Security previously received nothing but death if they couldn't afford coverage.There are still non-government programs.Should our veterans have guaranteed access to healthcare when they come back from the battlefield?Guess what, you are...
What system does this plan replace?It's terrible, because you are using comparative language "more", "less" without providing any comparison points.Prior to 1935 there was no comprehensive safety net for seniors. Social Security didn't replace anything.Prior to 1965 there was no safety net for the very poor. Medicare and Medicaid didn't replace anything.Today there is no universal healthcare program to ensure that 90+% of Americans have health insurance. This plan isn't...
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "control". If by "control" you mean "make all decisions", then clearly that is not the case. If by "control" you mean "provide some basic regulations in an attempt to ensure access and quality", then I wouldn't object to it.In the lack of context and specificity when using words like "control" is where we find the hysteria and fear-mongering. Hysteria that leads someone to read a bullshit e-mail forward and take it as gospel.
New Posts  All Forums: