Like everything else though, I highly doubt that it wouldn't have gotten a bail out, at some point, if the benefits were outstripping the premiums.
What we should focus on is, what causes medical cost inflation.
That isn't addressed at all.
The public option idea, is a "sounds nice but doesn't deal with the problems at hand" idea.
Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 01-05-12 at 05:04 PM.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
I totally agree that HCR did not focus enough on cost containment, though it does include many pilot programs that could be expanded to contain costs going forward.
IMO single payer is the only way to really contain costs and it's somethig we will have to go to in the end.
Total out of pocket to me was $20. I pay $280 a month to cover a family of three for full medical dental and vision. I know, anecdotal evidence, but it's just a simple example of getting the job done. My experience with "free" healthcare, ala the US Navy wasn't ever so well done. First we had to go to the Clinic, get referred to specialist, then have an appointment for treatment. Total time for a similar situation was 3 weeks. Call me gun shy here, but real life never seems to match the rosey claims of those wanting free **** at the expense of everyone else.
⚧ C.T.L.W. You figure it out
My Endo doc went over my blood work. "I see your estrogen level is now at 315, do you feel like you have too much Estrogen now?"
I told her "... N... N.. No..." and started crying.
The cost is irrelevant if there is not a significant amount of freedom, choice, and competition in the market.Originally Posted by teamosil
The cost is also irrelevant if government calls all the shots.
Example. Prisoners pay zero for their health care. I do not therefore consider it better. Sad but true.
That said, how will it force costs down? Give us the top 5 ways, is the point. The point will be, that it's not simply "costs", that will be reduced. And when it comes to my health, I'm not interested in the Wal-Mart of ****ing health care, you can choose that for yourself, and I'll choose mine.
I also don't want to subsidize obese people who stuff their face and sit on their ass all day. I'd prefer to be in a lower risk pool, with lower premiums, because I sacrifice to stay healthy, and them subsidizing their poor lifestyle choices with my sacrifice is bad in every conceiveable way. Single pool my (ideal weight) ass.
And who exactly did the insurance companies "buy off"? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the Republicans. There was no public option because there was not enough Democrat support for one.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
But, in reality, capitalist markets don't result in zero profits. When they are functioning correctly, they result in very small profits. One company figures out a more efficient way to produce something than its competitors, so for a little while until they catch up, he makes a good profit, that sort of thing.
Anyways, dude, this isn't like some political debate. Again, I am just sitting here explaining super basic, non-controversial stuff to you. This is the most basic concept in economics we're discussing here. Go take a class, go read something, stop bothering the adults.