- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Because healthcare is a local issue
No, it's a national issue. Has been for decades
Because healthcare is a local issue
Our old system was profit based. We got ****ty healthcare care at twice the cost. What are you talking about?
No, it's a national issue. Has been for decades
Are you sure about that? Have you seen GM's history?
As Scandal Unfolds, G.M. Calls In the Lawyers
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/business/general-motors-calls-the-lawyers.html?_r=0
Or how about this:
Léo Apotheker's disastrous tenure as HP's CEO revealed a dysfunctional company struggling for direction after a decade of missteps and scandals. Can his replacement, Meg Whitman, fix the tech giant?
How Hewlett-Packard lost its way - Fortune Tech
Do a search and you'll find a lot more. Don't ignore that business struggles due to their own incompetence as well as government.
Again, that is your opinion. What experience do you have to justify that opinion? I actually ran a business with 1200 employees and we provided healthcare for them all including part time employees or at least the ones that wanted it. What is your experience?
aobut 25, or no I guess 30 years in healthcare. No, it is not my opinion. There is a world of evidence in the form of science. Go back to school get your masters in healthcaer, read and critique lots of studies that directly relate to diverese areas of healthcare then explain to me how "providing" 1200 people health insurance makes you some sort of expert. It is so disguiting talking to some guy that ran a buisness and suddenly thinks he knows everything about everything. I do not now nor do I ever want to live in a company.
I got my degree and then my Masters in the real world. How can someone like you with all that education justify giving more power to a Federal Govt. that has created a 17.3 trillion dollar debt, screwed up the implementation of a program that was passed in 2010, claims to want to get 45 million people insured and cannot tell us who makes up the 7.1 million signees? This is absolutely amazing that you buy what you are told and then never hold bureaucrats responsible for there screwups. The govt. isn't supposed to handle personal responsibility issues and our Founders created a govt. that was small in size with power left to the states. You want the Federal Bureaucrats to administer healthcare with their record? Wow
Our old system was profit based. We got ****ty healthcare care at twice the cost. What are you talking about?
That is your opinion
I know a little more than to mindlessly repeat, "Gooberment bad" If the RWers had a plan they should have trotted it out back in the 90's. They have simply sucked as much profit as possible out of the helathcaer system as long as possible. The only reason things are changing now is our old system was simply to expensive to contiue to function.
We got "****ty" healthcare? In this country? Hardly. We have great healthcare in this country, which is why so many come here to study it, practice it, and get medical treatment from it.
That doesn't make the suggestion you did. You said: It does seem to be presented that way. Are you expecting a parade with fireworks?
I'm not asking about your question. I'm asking what evidence you have of them not talking about it separately.
No, it's the opinion of the american people
Real Clear politics disagree with you,
All of the polls agree with me
As the above chart shows, the uninsured rate has gone from a high of 18% down to 15.6%, a drop of 2.4%. In a nation of approx 320 million, that means 7,680,000 more people who have insurance
Now it's time for all the people who have blamed every bad thing that's happened to health care since 2010 on ACA to explain how the drop has nothing to do with ACA
National polls mean nothing as this is a state issue
What that chart also shows is a net loss of about 5.1 million insurance policies in 2013 (eyeball 16.4% rate at start of 2013). So the net gain in that time was 1.6 million. That is bad news given that 3 million of the 7.7 million came from Medicaid. So it appears that the Private side of the equation had a net loss of 1.4 million insured people since the start of 2013 based on Gallop.
Yes, the uninsured going down is a bad thing!
Bad for republicans
Yes, the uninsured going down is a bad thing!
Bad for republicans
That certainly is your opinion but you haven't explained why it is a national issue since healthcare costs for the uninsured are paid by the state and local communities
You're wrong again
Again, your opinion noted
Gee, thought we were talking about Romney? Now you are moving the goalposts. Don't recall those people being elected to public office
It's not an opinion. It's fact