Demand for health care should tread a certain level if we aspire to have a truly healthy society.
If someone does not have the money for health care, they will either go into debt (which has a tendency to lead to bankruptcy) or go without it. Either scenario raises the cost.
The only way i see this reform damaging the economy is if we see even greater costs increases (health care inflation).This thing is going to cause massive economic damage and further dependence on government services, there have been instances where it's most ardent supporters have pretty much let that slip.
Agreed. But I am not in the camp of "less available health care" is always better.Sure. For instance with this situation, you don't have to be insured, or even pay to seek medical assistance in certain instances because of federal law, it puts a strain on hospitals which raises costs. If you pay cash you get a discount, but since many can't pay cash the increases are assessed on insurance payouts, when insurance companies have to pay more then we have to pay more. If the federal government hadn't put that burden on hospitals in the first place, along with very unfriendly tort laws which further not only increases in cost, CYA medicine, and an upward shift of MM. Insurance, we would see savings passed along to us down the entire health chain.
I think it is a silly idea as well, but they did not include a public option. My personal preference would be for a heavily deregulated private sector to compete with an open public option.True, and while I agree with you, I can't go as far as to force people to purchase.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
Oh wait, nvm. They put it right there in black and white in the bill.
God this is a sad day for this country. I've never voted a straight ticket in my life and I swore I never would. But I most likely will come Nov. Just to voice my disagreement with the ****tards who voted this atrocity in.
I see this as potentially abused more than any other entitlement, if anything demand will exceed supply. For instance my mother works in the charity system here, she sees people who will not take generics and are constant "customers" because they aren't paying, these people will be on the public option eventually when the scum in Washington makes adjustments, so Louisiana's problem is about to become a national one.Demand for health care should tread a certain level if we aspire to have a truly healthy society.
Not necessarily, again, risk is so skewed right now to actually get the situation right would require around 3-4 decades of slowly peeling back the internal problems. Such as eliminating national medical school caps on enrollment, tort reform, etc.If someone does not have the money for health care, they will either go into debt (which has a tendency to lead to bankruptcy) or go without it. Either scenario raises the cost.
If anything we are going to see those healthcare inflation costs escalate in about two years, as well, let's not forget that this bill is a setup to eliminate private insurance companies, if they go down everyone does.The only way i see this reform damaging the economy is if we see even greater costs increases (health care inflation).
Not always better, usually not in fact, but this bill is not the way to go.Agreed. But I am not in the camp of "less available health care" is always better.
If the heavy regulations are appropriate I agree, however many of the regulations on my industry are not only a band-aid on a bullet wound, they miss the wound itself.I think it is a silly idea as well, but they did not include a public option. My personal preference would be for a heavily deregulated private sector to compete with an open public option.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.