Do you work for this guy? You seem to base plenty of your opinions on this guy views. Do you pay him for his transcripts? Maybe the rest of us should pick up the check when the uninsured go to ER for the flu. Union Buddies...do you mean people that get their healthcare from an employer? Are you insured? http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/skyrocketing-premiums/
Do you work for the Obama administration? Are you a recipient of any public assistance programs? Are you a member of a political organization? What is your excuse for your bizarre, unusually defensive positions?
This coming from the guy that cannot answer a simple softball question on Iraq invasion after years of practice and with the best family connections to generate the perfect answer.
Anyway, the three main health related killers in the USA are heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. The top two are highly related to lifestyle choices: what you eat and how you exercise. The third is dependent on smoking and pollution. Maybe the answer to rising cost of healthcare is to charge more to those who choose a lifestyle that is slowly killing them. Then give a discount to the rest who make wiser choices. Seems to work for car insurance, you get better rates for good driving records. Many of car insurances offer accident forgiveness programs, so lapses in your lifestyle choices could similarly be covered. It is nice to see pre-existing conditions waived in ACA along with college aged children's coverage in parents plans. The two greatest changes that has impacted large populations.
In summary, you do not need a fancy fitness tracker to tell you to move more, eat less, and eat healthy.
Most people had their rates go up by at least 50% or more. That's not a normal increase from a previous year. It's due to ACA. I couldn't keep my own plan because I was dropped as was ever other person on the plan in California due to ACA. The replacement plan I was offered was 70% higher with less coverage. Read this:
"Most People'' is a pejorative of bull shit. You cite a 2013 article, instead of getting off your ass and researching the actual results from 2013 to the present.
Do you all really think he was up at 3 in the morning and got the first order for the space black. Most are just shipping out and any order not done in the first few minutes show june and july shipping dates.
I feel sorry for the poor Intern who had to be up at 5 in the morning for this national-security matter "get a space black watch for Mr Bush".
The right argues that hospitals would work better if they were more like a business that treats you as a customer. The left argues that hospitals would work better arranged like a government department. They're both missing the point in my opinion: medicine is primarily a scientific problem, not an organizational one. We need to focus on curing the limited number of diseases out there, and then medicine will be so cheap it won't matter how it's organized.
In my country (Australia) we have free health care, and the government recently proposed a bill to put a $7 charge on doctor's visits. But the unique thing was, the money didn't go to the doctor, or to the government, but to medical research. I thought this was a clever way to establish a link between the number of people getting sick, and the amount of research getting done, which fit in with my science-first approach to the whole question. But the government did not have an absolute majority in the senate and the opposition (left party) voted it down.
No Bush fan, but the point is health care vs. medical care. Only YOU can take care of your health. Massive medical costs come from people who don't give a damn about their health (smoking-related diseases, obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, sedentary lifestyle, 0 exercise). Buying everyone an Apple Watch would be much cheaper than paying for everyone's medical needs (impossible anyway) Socialized medicine is an illusion, unless the U.S. is essentially subsidizing 99% of your defense budget, allowing for temporary socialism in western and northern Europe. Its unsustainable in the long term.
Countries with Universal Healthcare
The US remains the only developed nation without it.
Oh, but it's worth it because we have the best healthcare in the world, right?
Oops, no we don't. In this list of 11 developed countries, the US ranks dead last.
That is, except for one category: cost.
The US has the most expensive healthcare, even though it's also the worst. The US is the only country in this group where both preventive care and life saving treatments and medication are denied to those who can't afford them. It is the only country in the group where an illness or injury can financially devastate someone and send them into bankruptcy.
Health care IS private, time for him to actually read the bill he's ragging against; or does he mean to repeal Medicare? Sure that will make the 50% of GOP constituents that are over 65 very happy...
The country's deficit grew but that's to be expected considering Obama's administration began with the worst recession in history since the Great Depression, largely the result of Republican deregulation of Wall Street. Nonetheless, that deficit has now shrunk and stabilized. Now if we can get the 1% to start paying their fare share of taxes again we can probably see a return to a surplus.
We should also note that, during Obama's term, the country emerged from that recession, unemployment came down, Wall Street was re-regulated, the Iraq War was ended, we began withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, saved the US auto industry, toppled Gaddafi, killed Bin Laden, reversed Bush's torture policies, improved America's image abroad, and established net neutrality for internet service providers.
I have strong differences with some of Obama's policies but on the whole I'd say he's done alright for America.
The country's deficit grew but that's to be expected considering Obama's administration began with the worst recession in history since the Great Depression, largely the result of Republican deregulation of Wall Street. Nonetheless, that deficit has now shrunk and stabilized.
We should also note that, during Obama's term, the country emerged from that recession, unemployment came down, Wall Street was re-regulated, the Iraq War was ended, we began withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, saved the US auto industry, toppled Gaddafi, killed Bin Laden, reversed Bush's torture policies, improved America's image abroad, and established net neutrality for internet service providers.
I have strong differences with some of Obama's policies but on the whole I'd say he's done alright for America.
If you included Obama, you'd see an issue with the deficit, but you're saying it's okay because of his circumstances. In the same way, a graph doesn't say everything about a president. When Ronald Reagon came in, he too was facing a huge recession, my parents felt it big time. And he's the president who got us out of it.
If you included Obama, you'd see an issue with the deficit, but you're saying it's okay because of his circumstances. In the same way, a graph doesn't say everything about a president. When Ronald Reagon came in, he too was facing a huge recession, my parents felt it big time. And he's the president who got us out of it.
Reagan's administration fueled our country's meteoric rise in wealth inequality. In subsequent decades, we've seen abundant evidence of the fallacy of trickle down economics.
Do you work for the Obama administration? Are you a recipient of any public assistance programs? Are you a member of a political organization? What is your excuse for your bizarre, unusually defensive positions?
Specifically, look at projections for 2025. That should scare the hell out of every Anerican.
No, I don't work for the Obama administration. No public assistance. Not a member of any political organization. What about you? Not someone like yourself who takes every opportunity to somehow bring up your anti-government rants in plenty of threads that have nothing to do with politics, talk about bizarre. I suppose anyone that calls you on your BS is somehow taking a defensive, bizarre position. Like I said before, I don't think you can think past your ideology. Which is based on a distortion of facts, history and a disregard for both of those things.
Guh this is just painful to read. Everyone keeps saying oh but the ACA got rid of pre-existing conditions. I'm, yeah but guess what else would have? A simple bill that didn't overh the whole thing and make it demonstrably more expensive than it already was. Again, most of the things people like about the ACA could have EASILY passed as a single item. Pass a law that says they can't refuse a person because of pre-existing conditions and there us go, no overhaul needed it really IS that simple but they wanted to jack with the whole thing and try to pit the opponents against people who have cancer which is a completely false and idiotic choice.*shakes head*
Comments
Do you work for the Obama administration? Are you a recipient of any public assistance programs? Are you a member of a political organization? What is your excuse for your bizarre, unusually defensive positions?
Take a look at this: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49973
Specifically, look at projections for 2025. That should scare the hell out of every Anerican.
Anyway, the three main health related killers in the USA are heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. The top two are highly related to lifestyle choices: what you eat and how you exercise. The third is dependent on smoking and pollution. Maybe the answer to rising cost of healthcare is to charge more to those who choose a lifestyle that is slowly killing them. Then give a discount to the rest who make wiser choices. Seems to work for car insurance, you get better rates for good driving records. Many of car insurances offer accident forgiveness programs, so lapses in your lifestyle choices could similarly be covered. It is nice to see pre-existing conditions waived in ACA along with college aged children's coverage in parents plans. The two greatest changes that has impacted large populations.
In summary, you do not need a fancy fitness tracker to tell you to move more, eat less, and eat healthy.
"Most People'' is a pejorative of bull shit. You cite a 2013 article, instead of getting off your ass and researching the actual results from 2013 to the present.
You're completely fact free.
Do you all really think he was up at 3 in the morning and got the first order for the space black. Most are just shipping out and any order not done in the first few minutes show june and july shipping dates.
I feel sorry for the poor Intern who had to be up at 5 in the morning for this national-security matter "get a space black watch for Mr Bush".
The right argues that hospitals would work better if they were more like a business that treats you as a customer. The left argues that hospitals would work better arranged like a government department. They're both missing the point in my opinion: medicine is primarily a scientific problem, not an organizational one. We need to focus on curing the limited number of diseases out there, and then medicine will be so cheap it won't matter how it's organized.
In my country (Australia) we have free health care, and the government recently proposed a bill to put a $7 charge on doctor's visits. But the unique thing was, the money didn't go to the doctor, or to the government, but to medical research. I thought this was a clever way to establish a link between the number of people getting sick, and the amount of research getting done, which fit in with my science-first approach to the whole question. But the government did not have an absolute majority in the senate and the opposition (left party) voted it down.
.
No Bush fan, but the point is health care vs. medical care. Only YOU can take care of your health. Massive medical costs come from people who don't give a damn about their health (smoking-related diseases, obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, sedentary lifestyle, 0 exercise). Buying everyone an Apple Watch would be much cheaper than paying for everyone's medical needs (impossible anyway) Socialized medicine is an illusion, unless the U.S. is essentially subsidizing 99% of your defense budget, allowing for temporary socialism in western and northern Europe. Its unsustainable in the long term.
Countries with Universal Healthcare
The US remains the only developed nation without it.
Oh, but it's worth it because we have the best healthcare in the world, right?
Oops, no we don't. In this list of 11 developed countries, the US ranks dead last.
That is, except for one category: cost.
The US has the most expensive healthcare, even though it's also the worst. The US is the only country in this group where both preventive care and life saving treatments and medication are denied to those who can't afford them. It is the only country in the group where an illness or injury can financially devastate someone and send them into bankruptcy.
What do you expect? He comes from the same dumb family that produced George W.
Couple of quick reminders of the results of Republican leadership:
Exclusively private.
I wish you could include Obama in that graph.
I wish you could include Obama in that graph.
The country's deficit grew but that's to be expected considering Obama's administration began with the worst recession in history since the Great Depression, largely the result of Republican deregulation of Wall Street. Nonetheless, that deficit has now shrunk and stabilized. Now if we can get the 1% to start paying their fare share of taxes again we can probably see a return to a surplus.
We should also note that, during Obama's term, the country emerged from that recession, unemployment came down, Wall Street was re-regulated, the Iraq War was ended, we began withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, saved the US auto industry, toppled Gaddafi, killed Bin Laden, reversed Bush's torture policies, improved America's image abroad, and established net neutrality for internet service providers.
I have strong differences with some of Obama's policies but on the whole I'd say he's done alright for America.
If you included Obama, you'd see an issue with the deficit, but you're saying it's okay because of his circumstances. In the same way, a graph doesn't say everything about a president. When Ronald Reagon came in, he too was facing a huge recession, my parents felt it big time. And he's the president who got us out of it.
If you included Obama, you'd see an issue with the deficit, but you're saying it's okay because of his circumstances. In the same way, a graph doesn't say everything about a president. When Ronald Reagon came in, he too was facing a huge recession, my parents felt it big time. And he's the president who got us out of it.
Reagan's administration fueled our country's meteoric rise in wealth inequality. In subsequent decades, we've seen abundant evidence of the fallacy of trickle down economics.
Do you work for the Obama administration? Are you a recipient of any public assistance programs? Are you a member of a political organization? What is your excuse for your bizarre, unusually defensive positions?
Take a look at this: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49973
Specifically, look at projections for 2025. That should scare the hell out of every Anerican.
No, I don't work for the Obama administration. No public assistance. Not a member of any political organization. What about you? Not someone like yourself who takes every opportunity to somehow bring up your anti-government rants in plenty of threads that have nothing to do with politics, talk about bizarre. I suppose anyone that calls you on your BS is somehow taking a defensive, bizarre position. Like I said before, I don't think you can think past your ideology. Which is based on a distortion of facts, history and a disregard for both of those things.
An Apple watch is going to cure my 40-year-old neighbor's brain cancer?
If it wasn't for the ACA, she'd have no medical coverage as she had a pre-existing condition, breast cancer, four years ago.