or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 58

post #2281 of 2360

The 30-Hours-Per-Week Job Hurdle:

 

 

Quote:
One of the most basic concepts in economics and business is marginal or incremental cost, the additional cost needed to produce or purchase one more unit of a good or service. For example, if a business can produce 100 widgets at a total cost of $5,000 and 101 widgets for $5,500, the marginal cost of the 151st unit is $500. At that rate, the company has a disincentive to produce more than 100 widgets since the cost rises sharply (an average additional cost of $4.45 per widget).
 
The same principle applies to the cost of labor. Imagine a worker who makes $16 an hour for 29 hours per week but whose incremental cost for the 30th hour of work each week rises to $112.15. For the 29 hours of labor, the cost is $464 while for 30 the cost is $576.15. That sharp increase would prevent many employers from hiring workers for more than 29 hours per week.
 
According to Jed Graham at Investor’s Business Daily, that is exactly what effect Obamacare will have on wages.

 

Once again, reality will prevail despite the best intentions of Obamacare and its (economically ignorant or, to co-opt a phrase, "economic reality denialist") supporters.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2282 of 2360

What can the US learn from India about the healthcare business?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2283 of 2360

Hope and Change has been delayed by Obama fiat until 2015.

 

Health-Law Employer Mandate Delayed by U.S. Until 2015

post #2284 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Hope and Change has been delayed by Obama fiat until 2015.

 

Health-Law Employer Mandate Delayed by U.S. Until 2015

 

And from the Left?  Silence.  Obamacare is a disaster through and through.  It's worse than socialized medicine.  It combines the worst of the private and public systems.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2285 of 2360

The problem is that it puts the blame for health care costs and lack of affordable access in the wrong spot. The insurance companies. It never addressed the issue of why things cost so much and what to do at end of life (where all the money is spent). 

post #2286 of 2360

The Truth About SwedenCare

Quote:
There is nothing economically mysterious about health care — it is just another service. Like any other it can be plentifully provided on a free market at affordable prices and constantly improving quality. But like everything else, it breaks down when the central planners get their hands on it, which they now have. To claim that the problems are due to a “market failure” in health care is like saying that there was a market failure in Soviet bread production.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2287 of 2360

Now THERE's a man with an agenda.  The article is hopelessly biased.  We have family living in Sweden and there's nowhere near the doom-and-gloom portrayed in that opinion piece.  And Sweden's tax rate is not 70% as the opinion piece states, it's under 50% (he's clearly including VAT, which is a sales tax and not income tax) - and before everyone gets up in arms over that, you need to appreciate that it covers education through college, all ranges of medical and dental care (braces too) and property taxes are negligible.  We've been there many times and you'll be hard-pressed to find a country with a better quality of life.
 

post #2288 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post

Now THERE's a man with an agenda.  The article is hopelessly biased.  We have family living in Sweden and there's nowhere near the doom-and-gloom portrayed in that opinion piece.  And Sweden's tax rate is not 70% as the opinion piece states, it's under 50% (he's clearly including VAT, which is a sales tax and not income tax) - and before everyone gets up in arms over that, you need to appreciate that it covers education through college, all ranges of medical and dental care (braces too) and property taxes are negligible.  We've been there many times and you'll be hard-pressed to find a country with a better quality of life.

 

He has experiences and opinions different from yours, therefore he has an agenda and is "hopelessly biased"?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2289 of 2360

Look, an apple a day keeps Obama care away.  Both are a good thing.

Go Tallest Skill

post #2290 of 2360

You are dam right. It stinks!
 

post #2291 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post

Now THERE's a man with an agenda.  The article is hopelessly biased.  We have family living in Sweden and there's nowhere near the doom-and-gloom portrayed in that opinion piece.  And Sweden's tax rate is not 70% as the opinion piece states, it's under 50% (he's clearly including VAT, which is a sales tax and not income tax) - and before everyone gets up in arms over that, you need to appreciate that it covers education through college, all ranges of medical and dental care (braces too) and property taxes are negligible.  We've been there many times and you'll be hard-pressed to find a country with a better quality of life.
 

Yea cause when and what the tax is applied to matters to the person paying it.

post #2292 of 2360
I'm looking forward to premiums goings up and doubling or even tripling or more. That's going to be hilarious, especially for the people who voted for Obama and his disastrous plan. I'll be just fine, but will they? 1smoking.gif1biggrin.gif
post #2293 of 2360

Read and weep:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?_r=1&

 

Quote:

Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%

 

My prediction: more examples will follow. Opposite examples will be nothing but hot air balloons from anti-Obamacare nitwits hoping to ride the wave of FUD.

post #2294 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynch View Post

Read and weep:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?_r=1&

 

 

My prediction: more examples will follow. Opposite examples will be nothing but hot air balloons from anti-Obamacare nitwits hoping to ride the wave of FUD.

 

From the article:
 
Quote:
For years, New York has represented much that can go wrong with insurance markets. The state required insurers to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, but did not require everyone to purchase insurance — a feature of the new health care law — and did not offer generous subsidies so people could afford coverage.
 
With no ability to persuade the young and the healthy to buy policies, the state’s premiums have long been among the highest in the nation. “If there was any state that the A.C.A. could bring rates down, it was New York,” said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who closely follows the federal law.

 

Costs may fall in New York, but they may rise elsewhere.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2295 of 2360
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2296 of 2360
Ehm, guys, the reason why it was highest was because the crucial requirement that everyone needs to be insured was missing.

I dont know what is debunked here. The fact that premiums have dropped considerably in numerous states? Or Obamacare itself?

Saying costs may rise elsewhere is in no way debunking obamacare. It's wishful thinking. Believe it or not, but the most important incentives are in place to force more competition between insurers to keep premiums low. And to do so by looking for slack in the healthcare-system. In order for insurers to be more successful than its competitors, it needs to find ways to reduce healthcare costs without the ability to cherry pick healthy premium payers.
post #2297 of 2360

ObamaCare! irked.gif

 

This piece of legislative trash, which has been associated with "liberal" ideology - lol.gif - is awfully similar to RomneyCare - when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. See comparison HERE and HERE and HERE. Conservatives lambast ObamaCare on account of the Democratic label Obama wears, *not* his administration's policy re. health care. However, they have either embraced, or not criticized RomneyCare.... because it is a conservative piece of legislation which panders to the insurance industry and HMOs ... as is ObamaCare.

 

To further point out the ultra-conservative origins of both ObamaCare and RomneyCare: the Heritage Foundation played a part in drafting RomneyCare, with help from arch "liberal" - lol.gif the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (!). ObamaCare was also a product of Heritage. Heritage's subsequent denial of involvement in ObamaCare is debunked HEREThe Heritage Foundation is almost as far to the right as its possible to go without falling off the end of the political spectrum.

 

Quote:
Romney thanked the Bush administration for approving federal authorizations to fund the law and praised the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) for his “essential” work in shaping and advancing the bill through the state legislature. “Special thanks as well to the Heritage Foundation,” Romney continued. “Two of its leading scholars are the ones who helped design and craft what we now call the Connector, which is the centerpiece of the insurance reform portion.” Once Heritage’s Dr. Robert Emmet Moffit took the stage, he praised the law for establishing a new “patient centered” and “consumer-based” market where everyone can find affordable coverage:

So, what do we have here? Either Mitt Romney was deceiving Republicans during the 2012 Presidential election by being a closet liberal (yeah, right...

lol.gif !!!)

, or Obama deceived his base by pretending to be a liberal. Authoritarian warmonger, corporate lackey and promoter of Orwellian anti-American garbage, Obama - has been deceiving and lying to Americans since 2008. POS. 1mad.gif

We all know that, regardless of what side of the aisle we lean towards. 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2298 of 2360
Sammi Jo, there is a difference between programs crafted and administered at the state level, versus forcing individuals to participate in a Federal program. In fact, the only way it can "legally" work (according to the Supreme Court) is as a TAX! Otherwise, it is clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution LIMITS what the Federal government can do... and with good reason! And AS A TAX, it may in the future be struck down.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 7/18/13 at 6:36am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #2299 of 2360

Or not!

 

;D

post #2300 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynch View Post

Read and weep:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?_r=1&

 

 

My prediction: more examples will follow. Opposite examples will be nothing but hot air balloons from anti-Obamacare nitwits hoping to ride the wave of FUD.

My employer is too politically motivated to blame ACA. I got an email yesterday warning that premiums/copays are going up steeply next year. Thanks Obama! Hope Change Yes We Can

post #2301 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Sammi Jo, there is a difference between programs crafted and administered at the state level, versus forcing individuals to participate in a Federal program. In fact, the only way it can "legally" work (according to the Supreme Court) is as a TAX! Otherwise, it is clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution LIMITS what the Federal government can do... and with good reason! And AS A TAX, it may in the future be struck down.

 

RomneyCare also has penalties for those who failed to purchase insurance - that's the "individual mandate" common to both. It's constitutionality at state level is questionable too.

Quote:

The word “insurance” does not appear in the Massachusetts Constitution. However, that Constitution’s “Declaration of Rights” says: “All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”

 

How does a mandate that forces a man to surrender some of his liberty and some of his property in purchasing a government-approved health-insurance policy comport with the natural rights to liberty and property expressly protected by the Massachusetts Constitution?

But in the last 12 years we've seen both Bush and Obama Administrations violate the US Constitution on multiple occasions.... and nobody has dared call them for hijacking their oath of office.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2302 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


.... and nobody has dared call them for hijacking their oath of office.

 

Um..what?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2303 of 2360

Seriously? You present a tekst as "the truth of swedencare" and it's not much more than opinion?

 

He has an agenda because he displayed his facts, or rather, opinions in such a way that it fits a certain narrative. 

 

His conclusion is built on thin air.

 

 

Quote:
The reason American insurance-based healthcare is so expensive is that it is heavily regulated and legally connected to the equally-regulated insurance industry. Both are well protected from competition by regulation. Obamacare will make them even more expensive, bureaucratic, and inaccessible. The way to fix U.S. healthcare is by excising the central planners and regulators from it, not by implanting droves more of them.

 

First of: regulation and competition are not mutually exclusive. You can see this basic idea in any sport you can imagine. It can even improve competition (by levelling the playing field) Same holds for economies.

Second: the reason American healthcare is so much more expensive has to do with lack of transparency (one might argue that regulation is necessary for the market to have the right incentives), an abundance of slack through the entire system (insurers, healthproviders, middle men). This abundance of slack is due to the lack of proper incentives. Believe it or not, but the proposed laws take care of a lot of these incentives. And yes, the linkin pin are those insurers.

 

Buraucracy/regulation is everywhere (internationally), so the idea that US is more expensive than heavily regulated and centralised markets outside the us just contradicts itself.

 

Anyways, time will tell. And I hope you'll have the decency to admit you're wrong when the laws are finally implemented and all profecies turn out to be complete nonsense.

post #2304 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luykx View Post

Seriously? You present a tekst as "the truth of swedencare" and it's not much more than opinion?

He has an agenda because he displayed his facts, or rather, opinions in such a way that it fits a certain narrative. 

His conclusion is built on thin air.



First of: regulation and competition are not mutually exclusive. You can see this basic idea in any sport you can imagine. It can even improve competition (by levelling the playing field) Same holds for economies.
Second: the reason American healthcare is so much more expensive has to do with lack of transparency (one might argue that regulation is necessary for the market to have the right incentives), an abundance of slack through the entire system (insurers, healthproviders, middle men). This abundance of slack is due to the lack of proper incentives. Believe it or not, but the proposed laws take care of a lot of these incentives. And yes, the linkin pin are those insurers.

Buraucracy/regulation is everywhere (internationally), so the idea that US is more expensive than heavily regulated and centralised markets outside the us just contradicts itself.

Anyways, time will tell. And I hope you'll have the decency to admit you're wrong when the laws are finally implemented and all profecies turn out to be complete nonsense.

The healthcare tax has already affected rates. From my personal experience, my rates nearly tripled and I had to switch to a lesser known plan to avoid financial disaster. And all this before the worst parts of the tax are enacted fully. It's going to get very ugly and I predict young people will flee states with large elderly populations. They get hit the worst to subsidize the elderly and infirm. They just don't realize how this will impact then until they see at their diminishing income.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 7/19/13 at 2:29pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #2305 of 2360
Good point. There is this dependency, but the irony is that premiums rising due to elderly populations hasn't got anything to do with obamacare. Premiums would rise regardless.

I do however wonder what is happening in those states with the medicaid/medicare programs though. I would suppose that those elderly would be in a different pool so that the rest of the population suffers less from an expensive minority.
It's especially those programs which should average those costs out over the entire us population, instead of a smaller group of people.
post #2306 of 2360

It's vindication time on so many fronts, it's hard to keep track of which train wreck is hitting the Obama administration at any given moment.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2307 of 2360

I remember hearing recently that Obamacare may have been designed to fail so that its original proponents could then say that it did not work solely because it was not explicitly a single-payer system, using the failure as a gateway to get single-payer enacted.

 

Of course, deception and purposeful mismanagement of federal funds on that scale would be… unfortunate for those involved.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #2308 of 2360

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

ObamaCare is a patch work of desires and "solutions" put together with duct tape and bailing wire.

post #2309 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post
 

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

ObamaCare is a patch work of desires and "solutions" put together with duct tape and bailing wire.

 

Perhaps one should go back to the originators of ObamaCare™ to launch criticisms - it was written up largely by lawyers from the Heritage Foundation, not exactly famous for liberal views (!). Heritage was also instrumental in creating RomneyCare in MA. The latter, btw, has worked fairly well, as noted by some, on account of it being a state, as opposed to federal, mandate.

 

I wonder why Obama decided to go for a rightwing organization to put his "health care" program together - if he was a true liberal, he would have gone literally anywhere else, for example, the medical community for starters, rather than on his kneepads in front of big insurance.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2310 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
 

 

Perhaps one should go back to the originators of ObamaCare™ to launch criticisms - it was written up largely by lawyers from the Heritage Foundation, not exactly famous for liberal views (!). Heritage was also instrumental in creating RomneyCare in MA. The latter, btw, has worked fairly well, as noted by some, on account of it being a state, as opposed to federal, mandate.

 

I wonder why Obama decided to go for a rightwing organization to put his "health care" program together - if he was a true liberal, he would have gone literally anywhere else, for example, the medical community for starters, rather than on his kneepads in front of big insurance.

 

You might have a point if OC were only an individual mandate. But it's not.

post #2311 of 2360

ObamaCare has barely started, and it's already started to magically cure cancer.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2312 of 2360

Obama redefines cancer? No surprises there; redefinition is standard practice amongst rogue politicians. The previous administration were masters of it, covering a huge variety of topics, such as torture, contraception, spying laws, freedom, manufacturing jobs, civil rights, presidential power, carbon dioxide (!), democracy, privacy,  the Endangered Species Actsocial service role of nonprofits...  the list goes on and on.

 

Obama, the ultimate faux liberal, is following in his predecessor's footsteps.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2313 of 2360

ObamaCare is also making it worthwhile to make less money. This is going to work out well for the U.S. economy.

 

What could possibly go wrong?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2314 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
 

ObamaCare is also making it worthwhile to make less money. This is going to work out well for the U.S. economy.

 

What could possibly go wrong?

That's another very good reason then to have a nationalised healthcare service like the one in the UK.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2315 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post
 

That's another very good reason then to have a nationalised healthcare service like the one in the UK.

 

Always in search of that Holy Grail.

 

I understand the benefits of the single payer model. Why is it so hard for the other side to understand that the [profit-driven] U.S. health care industry is currently responsible for most of the medical innovations in the world today?

 

Playing ideological games with this is going to kill a lot of people, not all of them American.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2316 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
 

ObamaCare is also making it worthwhile to make less money. This is going to work out well for the U.S. economy.

 

What could possibly go wrong?

That's another very good reason then to have a nationalised healthcare service like the one in the UK.

 

Aside from the fact that the U.S. already spends nearly that much from the federal government per capita now and we get no health care for it, and the fact that the NHS is always broke, provides daily horror stories for the newspapers and now denies care for any number of reasons, you may have a point.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2317 of 2360

Nothing highlights the difference between UK and US politics more than socialised healthcare.

 

When interviewed about the current privatisation of the Royal Mail, one of the more right-wing Conservative ministers was asked if there was anything he wouldn't privatise. He didn't even have to consider the question. His instant answer was the NHS.

 

Yes, NHS failures are a popular topic for the British tabloids. You've got to remember that the British tabloids are very good as sensationalising news though. Their current obsession is 'killer' spiders:rolleyes: 

post #2318 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
 

Nothing highlights the difference between UK and US politics more than socialised healthcare.

 

When interviewed about the current privatisation of the Royal Mail, one of the more right-wing Conservative ministers was asked if there was anything he wouldn't privatise. He didn't even have to consider the question. His instant answer was the NHS.

 

Yes, NHS failures are a popular topic for the British tabloids. You've got to remember that the British tabloids are very good as sensationalising news though. Their current obsession is 'killer' spiders:rolleyes: 

 

If the U.S. were getting for it's dollars what the U.K. was getting for it's pounds, there wouldn't be much of an argument.

 

 

As you can see there, the U.S. public spending on health care is more than the U.K. and is in fact more than almost anyone else in terms of pure spending. For that the public gets absolutely no NHS. We get no public health hospitals. We get no public health system of any sort.

 

To imagine the U.S. situation you'd have to imagine all the spending for the NHS going into some hole that gives you no benefit. Then imagine that because you need health care, you've purchased private health insurance or have obtained it through your employer. Now imagine the government declares they will fix the high cost of health care (largely caused by the fact that they take a large portion of the money and provide most of the population with nothing to show for it) by mandating many new requirements for your private health insurance and will also now mandate that everyone buy private health insurance. When the rates for the mandated health insurance arrive they are even higher than the old rates which you shouldn't have had to pay at all with the government already spending so much on health care.

 

What I've just described is the ACA or Obamacare as it is also referred to in the U.S. The government steals all the health care dollars. Then mandates you buy plans they control offered by private insurance to pay for the fact that the government doesn't do it's job in the first place.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2319 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
 

 

If the U.S. were getting for it's dollars what the U.K. was getting for it's pounds, there wouldn't be much of an argument.

 

 

As you can see there, the U.S. public spending on health care is more than the U.K. and is in fact more than almost anyone else in terms of pure spending. For that the public gets absolutely no NHS. We get no public health hospitals. We get no public health system of any sort.

 

To imagine the U.S. situation you'd have to imagine all the spending for the NHS going into some hole that gives you no benefit. Then imagine that because you need health care, you've purchased private health insurance or have obtained it through your employer. Now imagine the government declares they will fix the high cost of health care (largely caused by the fact that they take a large portion of the money and provide most of the population with nothing to show for it) by mandating many new requirements for your private health insurance and will also now mandate that everyone buy private health insurance. When the rates for the mandated health insurance arrive they are even higher than the old rates which you shouldn't have had to pay at all with the government already spending so much on health care.

 

What I've just described is the ACA or Obamacare as it is also referred to in the U.S. The government steals all the health care dollars. Then mandates you buy plans they control offered by private insurance to pay for the fact that the government doesn't do it's job in the first place.

 

When it comes to healthcare, it's pure madness to have the main goal being profit. That's where the US has gone so fatally wrong. Some elements work well though, like innovation, entrepreneurship etc, but much of that can still happen even with a nationalised healthcare system. Indeed, Europe's now not that far behind the US, and other countries like China and Brazil, are rapidly developing their markets.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2320 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
 

Nothing highlights the difference between UK and US politics more than socialised healthcare.

 

When interviewed about the current privatisation of the Royal Mail, one of the more right-wing Conservative ministers was asked if there was anything he wouldn't privatise. He didn't even have to consider the question. His instant answer was the NHS.

 

Yes, NHS failures are a popular topic for the British tabloids. You've got to remember that the British tabloids are very good as sensationalising news though. Their current obsession is 'killer' spiders:rolleyes: 

The failings of NHS are pretty factual and well documented tabloids coverage or not.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality