-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein
My avatar created by Feliza Estrada firstname.lastname@example.org
Since I have the advantage of being at a computer here's a graph for you to check out. Switching to costs per capita still doesn't make the US look very good.
So what you're saying is:It might also be noted that the numbers seem to be calculated over the total populations. That would mean that the actual number of beneficiaries would be lower in the US than in the other countries meaning higher coverage per beneficiary in the US.
The US spends more, and covers fewer people, than nations with single payer / universal health care. Thanks for helping me make my point.
Did you not read what I wrote?As to shopping around, you should do so. In the US the costs of treatment differ quite a bit.
Health care is not a commodity like food or cars or houses. If you have a heart attack, you can't spend 30 minutes shopping around for the hospital with the cheapest emergency room. You will not do well if you tell the EMTs to take you to a hospital an extra 20 minutes away, because they charge less for X-rays. You can't get an angiogram in one hospital, then get transported to another to have a stent put in.
To expand on that: In the private insurance system, it's nearly impossible to figure out your costs. Sure, you can call a few MRI facilities -- if there is more than one in your area that takes your insurance, of course -- and hear different prices. But your insurer is paying part of the bill, and that can vary based on which facility you use.
Further: Sometimes you can choose, sometimes you can't. If you have a heart condition, you have the choice of a few medicines, and some may be generic. If you need chemotherapy, you can't pick and choose.
Or: Are you going to decline to get chemo, because surgery is cheaper?
Or: Am I going to use a worse doctor, because he's cheaper?
And again, as I pointed out: People were frequently denied coverage, and the rate at which they were denied was increasing. Meaning that at least 20% of people tried to get covered, and were refused. Even people who had coverage were getting denied on a regular basis, and routinely fighting with insurers to get coverage.
And again, 70% of Americans got their coverage through their employer, or the government. 11% got it some other way.Others in similar circumstances made the choice to get health care at the sacrifice of other conveniences...often including their time because they sought second forms of income. You bleat on all you like but the fact remains...the vast majority of society has since we became a country, taken care of their health care needs. Somehow, this horrific thing that no one could possibly make happen...they made it happen.
And again, an increasing percentage were unable to get care, as more and more employers were phasing out coverage and/or people were taking jobs that didn't offer health insurance.
And again, the cost of care was skyrocketing. By 2010, a single person who needed coverage would have to cough up $5,000/yr. If you wanted to cover your family, it was $13,000. And prices were spiralling out of control.
So no, it wasn't as simple as just taking a second job, or pawning your Xbox.
You are a true believer. I dont expect you to have even the capacity to see the problems the ACA is facing. The reality is...if it was such an awesome thing, they wouldnt have had to lie to get it passed. If it was working, they wouldnt have to lie to promote it. And if it was working as well as you believe it is, they would not be able to even consider repealing it.
I'm not a huge fan of the ACA. We would have been much better off if we had gone single-payer or universal in the 50s. We didn't, so now we are screwed.
We knew, before it was passed, that the ACA could work. Mitt Romney's implementation had worked successfully in MA for years before the ACA was passed.
Many of the problems of the ACA are far from unfixable. Many of them are because the Republicans have been trying repeatedly to kill it, and do everything they can to turn it into a political liability for the Democrats. And now, that's blowing up in their faces, because this is pretty much the only conservative option available that will work better than the old system, and they know it.
And of course, you didn't cite a single statistic or source for any of your claims. No surprise there. *yawn*
2. still do
3. So? Millions weren't on Medicaid before..
4. So? How many voters you think were affected by lifetime limits
5. they don't cover preventative care now.
6. Yes... I bought insurance on my own prior to the ACA. No big deal
The truth is... that republicans could repeal Obamacare without having ANYTHING in place and it would not be a big deal politically. there probably would be rather little fallout.
this thread is not about "fixing" Obamacare. Its about republicans giving up "repeal" narrative for "repeal and replace" narrative. They had to do that because Obamacare was working ( I know that upsets you but please soldier on). And the proof Obamacare is working is they added "and replace". Now 6 years into Obamacare and 3 years into the exchanges, they are waffling, back peddling, hemming and hawing with "repeal and delay". Again, this thread is not about "fixing" Obamacare. Its about republicans pandering to an ignorant base with "repeal and replace sort of, maybe if we can think of something SQUIRREL!" plan.
hey, remember when you believed President Obama was born in kenya or that he wanted to kill old people. you're still believing the same liars.Don't kid yourself. Full - on socialized, unionized medicine was the ultimate long term, goal, and the Democrats were willing use false promises to screw the 320 million who were just fine to get there.
If you get government out of it, you will find costs go down and services improve, just like any service being provided.
The following was from an interview with Milton Friedman in 2006. It's spot on.
LA: Is there an area here in the United States in which we have not been as aggressive as we should in promoting property rights and free markets?
MF: Yes, in the field of medical care. We have a socialist-communist system of distributing medical care.
Instead of letting people hire their own physicians and pay them, no one pays his or her own medical bills. Instead, there’s a third party payment system. It is a communist system and it has a communist result.
Despite this, we’ve had numerous miracles in medical science. From the discovery of penicillin, to new surgical techniques, to MRIs and CAT scans, the last 30 or 40 years have been a period of miraculous change in medical science. On the other hand, we’ve seen costs skyrocket. Nobody is happy: physicians don’t like it, patients don’t like it.
Because none of them are responsible for themselves.
You no longer have a situation in which a patient chooses a physician, receives a service, gets charged, and pays for it. There is no direct relation between the patient and the physician.
The physician is an employee of an insurance company or an employee of the government.
Today, a third party pays the bills. As a result, no one who visits the doctor asks what the charge is going to be—somebody else is going to take care of that. The end result is third party payment and, worst of all, third party treatment.
...we've been quite content to produce
an unaware and compliant citizenry.
Demokrats discussing The D Base: Ivey(D) & Podesta(D)