So the Republicans couldn't pass it , no they didn't have the spine to put it up for vote ...

Trump blames Democrats for GOP health care bill failure

“The good news is they now own health care. They now own Obamacare.”

“The best thing that can happen is that we let the Democrats, that we let Obamacare continue, they’ll have increases from 50 to 100 percent,” he said. “And when it explodes, they’ll come to me to make a deal. And I’m open to that.”

Spoken like a sore loser

What would peoples response be , if the fire dept saying they wont respond to your burning house because they didn't build it

or the Police wont respond to your 911 call because you didn't give them a donation

or the coastguard wont rescue you at see until your swimming

The GOP needs to grow up .. sometimes you need to fix the car you have ... not just buy a new one FIX the Car and the reality is none of our elected officials ever have to drive in that car. And now the are crying it has no brakes and were going to let it crash ..... thats leadership ???

Making America great one Car wreck after another

sounds like th clown car isn't running on all cylinders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For someone who views themselves as a great negotiator it was a bad day and week. His first major push on a big legislative piece and he failed biggly. And on top of it they say he wanted to make people vote so he can see who would vote against it and then get revenge against them. He constantly insult the Democrats and then complained that they didn't help him. Is this the winning so often that people would get sick of winning that he so often talked about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Between Comey's testimony and this non-vote, I think Trump wishes he was back on the apprentice. I'm disappointed to learn, the plan is to just move on and tackle taxes, like that will go more smoothly. Suck it up buddy talk to your own party and step across the party line and talk to the other side, you want to succeed it takes compromise.

It is not really possible to negotiate to make a federally run health insurance better. It is by its very federal nature an unsustainable boondoggle. The only sustainable health insurance is a free market one.

Trying to make federally run health insurance sustainable would be like trying to make social security or Medicare sustainable. The Democrats are not going to negotiate away Social Security, or Medicare, or Obamacare. So, if the Republicans can't manage to get rid of Obamacare, it will remain, like all other federal social programs, until the country is so bankrupt that we will have to revert to a communistic system or have a revolution.

The only sustainable health insurance is a free market one.

You mean the same ones that brought on the ACA

and the insurers who love it when at 65 you go on medicare

And Due to their profit driven model of Health care they Pricing people right out the market ,

ask yourself what was the price of healthcare in the 1980's and the cost today as well as college is now a for profit model and they claim to be non profit

real medical costs grew by a stunning 241%.
the growth of college tuition and fees, up 596% since 1980.

http://www.businessinsider.com/college-and-health-cost-versus-income-2011-3

Healthcare should be a right not a choice

QUOTE=wdmso;1119460]The only sustainable health insurance is a free market one.

You mean the same ones that brought on the ACA

and the insurers who love it when at 65 you go on medicare

And Due to their profit driven model of Health care they Pricing people right out the market ,

You're confusing health care with health insurance. And you're not pointing out the full reason that the cost of health care has gone up. Both health care and health insurance have become increasingly less free market and increasingly more government regulated over time. And the rise in costs have consistently accompanied the rise in government regulation. Now, the constantly greater involvement of government was fueled not only by wonkish desire to "solve" problems as well as by central planners ideological belief in the virtue of government control, but as well, by those in the health care industry realizing that government regulation could be used to their advantage. The nexus between big government and greater profits for large centrally administered corporations (including health care centers) is the expensive, and ever more expensive, model to which you are referring here. That is not a free market model.

ask yourself what was the price of healthcare in the 1980's and the cost today as well as college is now a for profit model and they claim to be non profit

I've already talked about the cost of healthcare in the past in relation to the present in various other threads on this forum. And I've gone back much further than the 1980's which is too small a sample of time to make a useful comparison. By the 1980's the consolidation of big business and big government was well on ts way to being established. If anything, the 1980's was a brief time when government regulations and taxation were, to some small extent under the Reagan administration, rolled back. After that, especially from the Clinton years to now, the progressive connection between big business and big government has greatly expanded. Again, that is anything but free market.

real medical costs grew by a stunning 241%.
the growth of college tuition and fees, up 596% since 1980.

Those costs have gone up even more if you go back further in time. And the one constant has not been the growth of freedom in the market. Quite the opposite. The constant has been the constant growth of central government regulation of the market. This required a response of larger and more centralized business entities which were able to handle massive regulations and which benefited from them at the expense of smaller businesses. Free market economy has been allowed less and less space to flourish over that space of time.

I noticed that you posted another article/video by Peter Schiff to add to the video I posted in the thread on the future of Trump's economy just before this thread. I assume that signaled some confidence on your part in Schiff. If so, did you watch the whole video that I posted in that thread? Schiff pointed out the massive rise in healthcare costs and college tuition. And he connected that directly to government distortion of the free market by its interference and regulations. He even hinted that it might be the goal of progressive government to use regulation in order to not only distort the market but to make it collapse so as to, for instance, bring about totally government controlled and funded national health care. In a relatively few amount of words, he pointed out, from an economic point of view, who the culprits are in creating the huge rise in costs of health care and college tuition. I would recommend to you to go back to the video I posted and watch it again, or for the first time if you haven't already.

Healthcare should be a right not a choice[/QUOTE]

Would that be an unalienable right? Or a government granted right?

Are rights, for you, only granted by government?

Under our founded constitutional system, you have an unalienable right to pursue (seek) healthcare. You don't have a right to demand it, nor get it without just compensation to those who provide it. You pay for it yourself (or by an insurance company with which you contracted, chose, to pay for it).

Under a government which grants all rights, you have as much "right" to healthcare which that government allows you to have. You, or others, will pay for your care with taxes.

It's your choice of which system you want, so long as you can get a majority to go along with you. Which is to say, in a nutshell, under government granted "rights," you not only don't have a choice, you don't have a right.

What would peoples response be , if the fire dept saying they wont respond to your burning house because they didn't build it

or the Police wont respond to your 911 call because you didn't give them a donation

or the coastguard wont rescue you at see until your swimming

Apparently, the Democrat response would be not to respond, not to rescue you:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/flush-with-victory-democrats-are-in-no-hurry-to-reconcile/ar-BByQ5u9?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

The GOP needs to grow up .. sometimes you need to fix the car you have ... not just buy a new one FIX the Car and the reality is none of our elected officials ever have to drive in that car. And now the are crying it has no brakes and were going to let it crash ..... thats leadership ???

The Democrats refused to "fix the old car" when they bought the new Obamacare. And when it turned out to be more of a clunker than the old one, the cry is to fix the new and worse clunker. Uhh . . . most folks would buy a new car rather than investing more money into a broken down old one that was a lemon when it was new.

Making America great one Car wreck after another

That's been the Progressive model of government since time one. Constantly destroying the Constitutional system one wreck at a time. Then using the crises, wrecks, they create as an excuse to convince us that a new wreck is required. But they don't actually abandon the old wrecks. They keep the gas guzzlers chugging along with constant costly repairs, and just keep adding new wrecks to the pile of government bureaucracy. So now, instead of a well kept model, or even a new, shiny, well functioning one, we have a boondoggle of clunkers that are too expensive to maintain. So we have to constantly borrow more, and get deeper in debt to keep the clunkers going. And, in order to keep enticing the public, new clunkers are wrapped in glossy Christmas paper and parked in the garage.

The only sustainable health insurance is a free market one.

You mean the same ones that brought on the ACA

and the insurers who love it when at 65 you go on medicare

And Due to their profit driven model of Health care they Pricing people right out the market ,

ask yourself what was the price of healthcare in the 1980's and the cost today as well as college is now a for profit model and they claim to be non profit

real medical costs grew by a stunning 241%.
the growth of college tuition and fees, up 596% since 1980.

http://www.businessinsider.com/college-and-health-cost-versus-income-2011-3

Healthcare should be a right not a choice

"and the insurers who love it when at 65 you go on medicare "

The insurers aren't pushing people to Medicare at 65. It's that in this country, people buy insurance through work, and many people stop working at that age.

"And Due to their profit driven model of Health care they Pricing people right out the market "

Not remotely true, health insurers do not gouge in pricing. They can't, because it's a very, very highly regulated market. Insurer prices must always be approved by the state government. If you look at profit margins of different businesses in the US, health insurance margins are around 6%, which is below the average. You can google that. If a health insurance company starts making fat profits (as a % of revenue), the states force them to lower their rates.

"ask yourself what was the price of healthcare in the 1980's and the cost today "

Are you talking about the price of healthcare services, or the price of healthcare insurance? Two different things, but related of course. Health insurance is very expensive because the thing being insured (healthcare) is expensive. So if we want to lower the costs of health insurance, we need to find a way to lower the cost of the thing being insured - healthcare. As the price of healthcare goes up, so must the price of health insurance.

"the growth of college tuition and fees, up 596% since 1980. "

And let me guess, you blame Republicans for that.

An apple a day keeps the healthcare issue away
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when I started my Job 1988 my health insurance contribution was 25 cents a pay period
2017 its 400.00 a pay period

i must be missing where they are not making any money ??


I dont blame any party I blame health insurance and the healthcare system for profit model

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini: $15 millionAnthem
CEO Joseph Swedish: $13.5 millionCigna
CEO David Cordani: $14.5 milion
Humana CEO Bruce Broussard: $10.1 million
UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Helmsley: $14.9 million

Health insurance industry rakes in billions while blaming Obamacare for losses

In fact, UnitedHealth announced record-breaking profits in 2015, followed by an even better year this year. In July 2016, UnitedHealth celebrated revenues that quarter totalling $46.5 billion, an increase of $10 billion since the same time last year. And company filings show that UnitedHealth’s CEO Stephen J. Hemsley made over $20 million in 2015. To be fair, that is a pay cut. The previous year, in 2014, Hemsley took home $66 million in compensation.

Thanks to the insurance industry’s combination of record profits in recent years and increasing premiums, people on both sides of the political aisle have criticized the Affordable Care Act as being more beneficial to the insurance industry than consumers, though politicians remain deeply divided on what a good, viable alternative would entail.

but back to the topic of the thread is it ok for Trump let the ACA blow up rather than fix it seeing he cant replace it .. I thought he was on the little guys side ?

i must be missing where they are not making any money ??

They are making money but they are huge corporations and are just making a fair % profit.

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini: $15 millionAnthem
CEO Joseph Swedish: $13.5 millionCigna
CEO David Cordani: $14.5 milion
Humana CEO Bruce Broussard: $10.1 million
UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Helmsley: $14.9 million

Huge corporations and the CEO of all yuge corp. make big bucks. Ins. is no different than any other corp.

but back to the topic of the thread is it ok for Trump let the ACA blow up rather than fix it seeing he cant replace it .. I thought he was on the little guys side ?

The last part is valid. He ran on helping the little guy out and the CBO said 24M would eventually lose coverage and the older folks would have to pay like 5X what they pay now. I guess they can forgo that Iphone for 1 of the months premium but I don't know what they would do the 2nd month.

when you go see a doctor......
doesn't matter what or whose health care it is.....

first thing they say after a "brief analysis"
"i'm going to put you on __________ medication."

i don't trust the ramifications of the many negative side effects anymore
and i will forever say.... i no longer take medications. no thank you

good bye without a see ya in 2 or 3 weeks.... return visit

but back to the topic of the thread is it ok for Trump let the ACA blow up rather than fix it seeing he cant replace it .. I thought he was on the little guys side ?

It can't be fixed. It was made to fail. It will either be replaced by Republicans with some market based insurance system when it blows up, or it will be replaced by Democrats with single payer national health care.

when I started my Job 1988 my health insurance contribution was 25 cents a pay period
2017 its 400.00 a pay period

i must be missing where they are not making any money ??


I dont blame any party I blame health insurance and the healthcare system for profit model

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini: $15 millionAnthem
CEO Joseph Swedish: $13.5 millionCigna
CEO David Cordani: $14.5 milion
Humana CEO Bruce Broussard: $10.1 million
UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Helmsley: $14.9 million

Health insurance industry rakes in billions while blaming Obamacare for losses

In fact, UnitedHealth announced record-breaking profits in 2015, followed by an even better year this year. In July 2016, UnitedHealth celebrated revenues that quarter totalling $46.5 billion, an increase of $10 billion since the same time last year. And company filings show that UnitedHealth’s CEO Stephen J. Hemsley made over $20 million in 2015. To be fair, that is a pay cut. The previous year, in 2014, Hemsley took home $66 million in compensation.

Thanks to the insurance industry’s combination of record profits in recent years and increasing premiums, people on both sides of the political aisle have criticized the Affordable Care Act as being more beneficial to the insurance industry than consumers, though politicians remain deeply divided on what a good, viable alternative would entail.

but back to the topic of the thread is it ok for Trump let the ACA blow up rather than fix it seeing he cant replace it .. I thought he was on the little guys side ?

"i must be missing where they are not making any money ??"

Again, you have a very, very hard time (like most liberals) responding to what I said. I never, ever said they don't make "any" money. I said that there profit margins, are below average for all businesses in the country, and that they are very highly regulated by every state. The state insurance departments make sure that profit margins are not excessive, or they require the companies to decrease premiums.

Some companies make a ton of money, but that's because they have a lot of insureds. On average, for every dollar in premium they collect, they spend about 93-95 cents on healthcare costs and expenses of running the company. But some of them have millions of customers, so it adds up to a lot of total profit. But that doesn't mean you can cut premiums in half, or even by 10%, and still break even.

Thin profit margins per customer (on average), but a huge number of customers. All you see is the big total profit, not the fact that the margins per customer are thin.

Insurance is highly regulated, and there's also a fair amount of competition. Therefore, health insurance companies cannot charge excessive rates, or no one will choose to buy their product.

Ahh, CEO compensation, the whiny lullaby of the left. Yes, CEO compensation is grotesque and unfair. It's also nothing but a rounding error on the balance sheet of a company like Aetna. If the CEO worked for free, how much do you think they could decrease the annual cost of their customer's insurance plan? Aetna has millions and millions of customers. So CEO pay might cost each customer $15 a year. Big whoop.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/magazine/those-indecipherable-medical-bills-theyre-one-reason-health-care-costs-so-much.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fma gazine&action=click&contentCollection=magazine&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/magazine/those-indecipherable-medical-bills-theyre-one-reason-health-care-costs-so-much.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fma gazine&action=click&contentCollection=magazine&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

No one denies it needs fixing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's probably only bluffing (a sort of tactic in making a difficult deal) about stripping Congress of the health care subsidies that were provided to them in the deal that was made by Obama in order to pass Obamacare.

Styx 666 likes Trump's threat to erase Obama's subsidies to Congress if it doesn't repeal the ACA as the Republicans ((including the weasel McCain) promised they would do.

Here's Styx's well put opinion (which will probably offend the thin skinned):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgjJR-E64TU

Like Trump keeps saying "let it implode". (And it's going to)
Wonder then in the Democraps let him get away with saying
" I inherited this mess ". 😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's probably only bluffing (a sort of tactic in making a difficult deal) about stripping Congress of the health care subsidies that were provided to them in the deal that was made by Obama in order to pass Obamacare.

Styx 666 likes Trump's threat to erase Obama's subsidies to Congress if it doesn't repeal the ACA as the Republicans ((including the weasel McCain) promised they would do.

Here's Styx's well put opinion (which will probably offend the thin skinned):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgjJR-E64TU

I imagine most are wealthy enough to not be bothered if their job only provided an Obamacare type plan.

Health Care is so very complicated. Giving people free stuff is never a good idea because its so hard to get them to give it up or ask them to pay a little more for it. Many good MDs are moving to Wellness plans. http://www.mdvip.com/
They'll only take a limited number of patients - most who have private insurance or premium plans. That is one of the problems with a single payer system. Those who have the means will just pay for their own doctor.
In the end I don't see how this resolves itself.

health care isn't about giving free anything ... when a Vast i mean Vast number of jobs Wages will not cover the current cost of a Plan ... many who complain about the high cost had just Catastrophic Health Plan .. so lets see people put up what there paying I have good health plan been on the same job for 29 year originally only paid 25 cents a week in 1988 no co pay no deductible now i pay 250 by weekly 850 out of pocket and 250 deductible for meds the 20 co pay after in 29 years 2 kids is my real extent of using my insurance and thats a plan offered to a state who has buying power of over how many employees and its cheaper because of volume

How do you expect the landscaper or business owner with 10 workers to provide health care .. ?? people over 65 dont care they are covered and insurances companies are glad to see them gone rich people dont care they can afforded it

every one else will bitch util the get a real bill then they'll feel the pain and wish they had single payer or roll the dice till they reach 65

health care isn't about giving free anything ... when a Vast i mean Vast number of jobs Wages will not cover the current cost of a Plan ... many who complain about the high cost had just Catastrophic Health Plan .. so lets see people put up what there paying I have good health plan been on the same job for 29 year originally only paid 25 cents a week in 1988 no co pay no deductible now i pay 250 by weekly 850 out of pocket and 250 deductible for meds the 20 co pay after in 29 years 2 kids is my real extent of using my insurance and thats a plan offered to a state who has buying power of over how many employees and its cheaper because of volume

How do you expect the landscaper or business owner with 10 workers to provide health care .. ?? people over 65 dont care they are covered and insurances companies are glad to see them gone rich people dont care they can afforded it

every one else will bitch util the get a real bill then they'll feel the pain and wish they had single payer or roll the dice till they reach 65

WDMSO, you need to understand that health insurance is expensive because the thing being insured, healthcare, is expensive. Healthcare insurance is expensive because healthcare is expensive.

Health insurance is also very highly regulated. Insurers cannot charge whatever they want, rates must get approved by state government. The governments employ actuaries to make sure the insurers aren't inflating prices. And profit margins for health insurers, are below average for businesses in this country.

I have a typical family plan for a typical white collar job. For me and my wife & kids, I pay about 400 a month for my insurance, I think my company pays about double that (most people don't know that what you pay, is usually about 25% of the total cost, your employer pays the rest) so the true cost of my plan is a little over $1,000 a month. I have a $1,000 family deductible, and once that's met, I have $20 co-pays for office visits, $150 for emergency room visits. I have no complaints. I wish it was cheaper, but I know my carrier spends 95 cents of every dollar collected, paying benefits and expenses. They aren't price gouging.

How do we make it cheaper? beats me. I know there's some fraud and waste that can be rooted out, we can pass tort reform law which makes it less necessary for docs to practice defensive medicine. But I don't know that amounts to much.

And I don't want single payer, I don't want the government anywhere near my health.

you dont want them anywhere near your healthcare until you 65 or cant afford it then you'll want them.. like those who hate the government until a tornado or hurricane wipes them out and all you hear is where is the government

every one should get the same heath care its not a product its not a car so if you can afford a Ferrari and I can afford and used Yugo then try to make the argument well there both cars ....

U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

America is number 50 out of 55 countries that were assessed.

The U.S. rated especially poor in equality of coverage. The report found that 44 percent of low-income Americans have trouble gaining access to coverage compared with 26 percent of high-income Americans. The numbers for the U.K. are 7 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Not unrelated, the U.K.’s National Health Service was deemed the best health care system, just as it was in 2014. “In contrast to the U.S., over the last decade the U.K. saw a larger decline in mortality amenable to health care than the other countries studied,” the report reads.


but again facts matter to some and to other not so much ... how can Single-payer be worse

Why do Americans love Medicare but hate the idea of a single-payer healthcare system? It doesn't make sense.

1. Medicare provides comprehensive health care coverage for seniors. Since its creation in
1965, Medicare has provided universal health care to millions of seniors.
2.#^&#^&#^&#^&Medicare provides health security for seniors. Today only 2% of the elderly lack health
insurance compared to 48% in 1962, before we had Medicare.
3.#^&#^&#^&#^&Medicare provides free preventive health screenings. Seniors do not pay for Mammograms,
Diabetes or Cancer screenings thanks to provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
4.#^&#^&#^&#^&Medicare provides 41.8 million seniors prescription drug coverage through Part D.
The program will be even better when, thanks to the ACA, the Part D coverage gap known as the “donut
hole” will be phased out by 2020.
5. 9 million disabled Americans receiving Social Security benefits also receive health coverage through
Medicare.
6.#^&#^&#^&#^&Medicare’s costs rise slower than private insurance. Medicare spending per enrollee grew at
an average annual rate of 7.5% between 1969 and 2013, slower than the 9.1% growth rate in private
health insurance.
7.#^&#^&#^&#^&Medicare is efficient. Only 1% of traditional Medicare is overhead compared to 6% for privatized
Medicare.
8. #^&#^& Medicare promotes greater health equity in America. Medicare provides older people of
color, who are more likely to have lower incomes and therefore less able to save for health care costs, with a
critical economic lifeline.
9. #^&#^&#^&We earn our Medicare coverage. Medicare isn’t welfare. American workers’ payroll taxes fund
hospital, skilled nursing, home health and hospice care and premiums cover a portion of the costs for
physician visits, outpatient visits and preventive services.
10. Medicare is a social insurance program that works. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons why
Medicare is universally cherished is that in return for the contributions we make during our
working years we receive guaranteed health benefits.

Medicare is awful. Most seniors have to subsidize it with some other healthcare policy to even come close to affording basic care. So many people who should not be on it are s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g money out of it. It is another poorly run government program .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you dont want them anywhere near your healthcare until you 65 or cant afford it then you'll want them.. like those who hate the government until a tornado or hurricane wipes them out and all you hear is where is the government

every one should get the same heath care its not a product its not a car so if you can afford a Ferrari and I can afford and used Yugo then try to make the argument well there both cars ....

U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

America is number 50 out of 55 countries that were assessed.

The U.S. rated especially poor in equality of coverage. The report found that 44 percent of low-income Americans have trouble gaining access to coverage compared with 26 percent of high-income Americans. The numbers for the U.K. are 7 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Not unrelated, the U.K.’s National Health Service was deemed the best health care system, just as it was in 2014. “In contrast to the U.S., over the last decade the U.K. saw a larger decline in mortality amenable to health care than the other countries studied,” the report reads.


but again facts matter to some and to other not so much ... how can Single-payer be worse

Why do Americans love Medicare but hate the idea of a single-payer healthcare system? It doesn't make sense.

The U.K. Has 4 different National Healthcare services, one for England, one for Scotland, one for Ireland, and one for Wales.

Pesky facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you dont want them anywhere near your healthcare until you 65 or cant afford it then you'll want them.. like those who hate the government until a tornado or hurricane wipes them out and all you hear is where is the government

Health CARE was available to everyone (even non citizens and illegals) before Obamacare. It was far more inconvenient for those without insurance because they had to get it through the emergency room. Supposedly, the rest of us, the insured, had to pay for the uninsured visitors to emergency. So, Obamacare was supposed to relieve the rest of us of that cost which would help to lower premiums. Obamacare did just the opposite. It raised the cost to the rest of us, raising our premiums in order to pay for the previously uninsured who now were insured at our cost by subsidies instead of covering only their emergency visits. Government, as usual, raised the cost of health care by creating a larger source of payment as well as forcing insurance companies to cover far more than they had for everyone, even far more than was necessary.

People survived being "wiped out" by tornados and hurricanes before government stepped in to save them. Communities were more tightly nit and helped each other out. And it was cheaper because big government money was not available to tap into. Government "help," of course, is more expensive. It has, and is more than willing to spend, more money. So prices go up.

The more government "helps," the more not only is the help more expensive, people depend less on one another and communities become fragmented. Folks need and depend on each other less. The government is there to "help" them. Most Americans don't really know or associate with others a few houses, or a street or two, away. We have our own individual bubbles. The causes for that are various, but government "help" and regulations and policies and mandates has its fingers in that pie chart of reasons.

And the notion that there are those who "hate the government" is a red herring. There are very few who totally hate the government. Most of us like it when it does a good job of doing what it's supposed to do. But when it takes on the responsibility of doing more than it should, and places the burden of paying for that on productive taxpayers, that golden goose will lay some verbal turds at the doorstep of Big G.



every one should get the same heath care its not a product its not a car so if you can afford a Ferrari and I can afford and used Yugo then try to make the argument well there both cars ....

Why should everyone get the same health care? How is that even possible? Some doctors are better than others. Even in single government payer systems there is discrimination and rationing and choices of who gets care instead of others. And some get it sooner than others. And some die waiting.

And why does a thing not being a product mean that everyone should "get" exactly that thing without variation. There are many different services (rather than products) which are sold in different quantities and qualities depending on how much one is willing or able to pay for them. And, anyway, how is health care not a product? Is it not a product of individual and team efforts. Isn't its quality dependent on the ability and attention and the tools that those individuals and teams have and use? Doesn't good health care produce a healed, cured, healthy person in the place of a sick or disabled one, being the product of those individual and team efforts?

And why should someone who has the money to pay for the best health care right away rather than waiting for others who don't have enough money to pay someone who is willing to provide that care NOW for those who can afford it rather than waiting in line for those who can't afford it, or be denied altogether because the health service thinks the costs are too exorbitant to provide for everyone? Aren't some such exceptions already allowed in some single payer systems?

And if the government can mandate that everyone must have the same health care, why can't it mandate that everyone must buy the same car? And why can't the government be the single payer for all those same cars?


U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

It is much easier to be "efficient" if all services and costs are the same for everyone and all payments are made by the same payer. That sort of uniform efficiency produces a more uniform quality (not completely since different doctors, hospitals, are better than others, etc.). So there is no important variation from best to worst as there is in a market based individual payer system with discernable variations in quality, and so forth.

The more efficient uniform system is better for many and worse for many. But there is no inherent "fairness" in it. There is no "everyone pulling their weight" in it. Some pull the weight for others. And it discourages the striving for excellence that getting something better as a reward for harder and better effort encourages.

America is number 50 out of 55 countries that were assessed.

It

The U.S. rated especially poor in equality of coverage. The report found that 44 percent of low-income Americans have trouble gaining access to coverage compared with 26 percent of high-income Americans. The numbers for the U.K. are 7 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Not unrelated, the U.K.’s National Health Service was deemed the best health care system, just as it was in 2014. “In contrast to the U.S., over the last decade the U.K. saw a larger decline in mortality amenable to health care than the other countries studied,” the report reads.

As in "efficiency," "equality" is not a mark of being better for all. It is better for many than it could be and worse for many than it could be. Generally speaking, "equality" spreads mediocrity.

I'm guessing that the decline in mortality due to better health care is promoted at the poor end. Probably the wealthier and middle portions are not expanding life span because of "equality" in health care (they most likely would have had the "equal" care or better in a variable market system). As well, in general, life spans have expanded in more advanced countries over time due to improvements in food distribution and production as well as more and more medicines for various ailments. And most of that has been due to capitalistic market forces. "Spreading the wealth" (and the health care) requires the wealth and care to be "produced" in the first place. And the most "efficient" and productive way has been done by market capitalism.

but again facts matter to some and to other not so much ... how can Single-payer be worse

Why do Americans love Medicare but hate the idea of a single-payer healthcare system? It doesn't make sense.

Facts absolutely matter. But cherry-picked facts and stats, without context and completeness, distort the truth and lead us astray. Beware of the constant praise and quest for social "equality." Remember, the Pilgrims tried the social equality bit, and they not only sunk into mediocrity, but worse, the "equal" society totally collapsed due to the true "inequality" of everyone not pulling their own weight. The producers tired of being the golden goose but getting only the same as the non-producers for their efforts. They quit hustling, produced only enough for themselves, and the society imploded. The experiment was Ayn Rand-like before Ayn Rand.

And single payer is the current Progressive attempt to revive all the failed Marxian, communistic, social equality experiments that have been tried and failed for the past 175 years and which, amazingly, disregarded the Pilgrims' experiment two hundred years before all that.

Oh, and as for Medicare, (and Social Security, and Obamacare, and unlimited government help) is any of that fiscally sustainable?

Why should everyone get the same health care? because money should not influence your care or status or skin color( has a lot to do with your income) but seem you have no issue with that

How is that even possible? your confusing availability with out come 2 different issues Some doctors are better than others. its about getting care but again the logic more money paid equals better doctors rather than overall availably to care

Even in single government payer systems there is discrimination and rationing and choices of who gets care instead of others. And some get it sooner than others. And some die waiting.

this is a completely made up ^^^^^^ so this happens on Medicaid NO!

It happens now in the current system.. die cuz you cant afford the Best doctors and care or lose your house or go on welfare or MA Health not because your a slug you have no choice

this OMG single payer result in Government run hospitals like in Venezuela is a honed fear tactic of the right that the boogie mans coming blaming Liberals ideas for everything even as we hear daily how many seats they own in states and in DC and Governorships

its amazing how that works

Why should everyone get the same health care? because money should not influence your care or status or skin color( has a lot to do with your income) but seem you have no issue with that

Get over it. Money does influence. That's why people strive to get it. The notion that money should not influence something overlooks the intrinsic meaning of money. Money is a medium of EXCHANGE. And it represents the labor or product of those who own money (or inherit it). In a free society, exchange is voluntary. Healthcare involves an exchange between buyer and seller. If a buyer can demand the same product from a seller for less money than others are willing or able to pay, the exchange is not voluntary. It is coerced. And if government can force sellers in a given exchange to trade their product for less return than they can get from other buyers, than it can do so in all exchanges. And if government can take ownership of all exchanges, determining which can exist, in what manner they exist, and "pay" for all exchanges equally for all buyers regardless what those buyers have to offer for the product, then there is really no exchange. The government, in effect, owns the product and the labor to produce it, and likewise owns the health of those needing the product. It all becomes a process of people filling the slots in the scheme that government masterminds devise, "benevolently" seeing to it that those filling the slots stay healthy enough to continue doing so.

I see that you didn't answer (among other things) my question "And if the government can mandate that everyone must have the same health care, why can't it mandate that everyone must buy the same car? And why can't the government be the single payer for all those same cars?"

So, yeah, there is a reason for money, or some facsimile. It makes it more efficient to make trades. It expands the size and efficiency of a market. It, or what it represents, is an intrinsic part of a marketplace. Removing it or what it represents from the market, eliminates the market.

A bureaucratically planned and enforced society has no need of a market. A market is the enemy of planned, controlled, societies. And vice versa.

How is that even possible? your confusing availability with out come 2 different issues Some doctors are better than others. its about getting care but again the logic more money paid equals better doctors rather than overall availably to care

In the case of better doctors, the outcome is what is available. There is no confusion between outcome and availability there. What you're confusing is that availability to health care gives all the availability to the same healthcare. That is not possible. Some will get better, some not as good, doctors, so it is not possible under single payer system for all to choose the best. So everybody will not get the same healthcare. Nor will the same healthcare even be available to everybody. Even having the chance at the best healthcare, other than luck, is to have more to offer for it.

Even in single government payer systems there is discrimination and rationing and choices of who gets care instead of others. And some get it sooner than others. And some die waiting.

this is a completely made up ^^^^^^ so this happens on Medicaid NO!

It happens in totally single payer systems . . . such as the UK which you mentioned. We have not yet achieved such a system in our country. We're on the cusp of that happening. If and when it does, it will be happening here.

It happens now in the current system.. die cuz you cant afford the Best doctors and care or lose your house or go on welfare or MA Health not because your a slug you have no choice

That's the reason for sustaining a free market. It creates the possibility for getting better results for yourself if you strive for the means to do so. And that striving, by the way, is what creates bigger markets which create more technology and means to provide better results. Take away the striving and the market shrinks. Availability for better stuff diminishes. The trajectory toward controlled societies increases. Freedom is lost. But the poor will be taken care of by government edict, and there will be more levelling of society into an overall poorness living under the deception of a minimized state of hog heaven.

this OMG single payer result in Government run hospitals like in Venezuela is a honed fear tactic of the right that the boogie mans coming blaming Liberals ideas for everything even as we hear daily how many seats they own in states and in DC and Governorships

its amazing how that works

By all means, let us keep chipping away at the benefits of a free marketplace. Let us keep squeezing the life out of it.

Venezuela! Pfft! Nothing there to see. Cuba is the paradise which we keep missing to notice as such. China and Russia trying to move toward capitalism in order to sustain their economies--just a little tick, a little glitch on the road to the final equal, fair, and politically righteous societies controlled by government edict.

So I should work 60 hours a week to pay for my Buick health care plan (can't afford the Cadillac plan) AND contribute to someone else's Buick health care plan?

I contribute both with my plan (that also pays into Hospitals that assist the uninsured) and with my taxes that are "redistributed" for me.

The money should have no issue re quality of health care is wrong and frankly unicornrubyslipper talk. Money HAS to be taken into account. Otherwise people will continue to take money out of other people's piles. And more and more and take money from our kids and your kids futures as debt. That should be unacceptable. It is not a bottomless pit.

Should there be more inexpensive ways to distribute health care? More clinics? More community center based medicine? What responsibility lies with those that are receiving this no cost / low cost health care (let alone the full plans)?


FTR - I am for some type of AFFORDABLE care for those that cant afford it and those that are taxed for it - but this is not affordable nor sustainable.

So I should work 60 hours a week to pay for my Buick health care plan (can't afford the Cadillac plan) AND contribute to someone else's Buick health care plan?

I contribute both with my plan (that also pays into Hospitals that assist the uninsured) and with my taxes that are "redistributed" for me.

The money should have no issue re quality of health care is wrong and frankly unicornrubyslipper talk. Money HAS to be taken into account. Otherwise people will continue to take money out of other people's piles. And more and more and take money from our kids and your kids futures as debt. That should be unacceptable. It is not a bottomless pit.

Should there be more inexpensive ways to distribute health care? More clinics? More community center based medicine? What responsibility lies with those that are receiving this no cost / low cost health care (let alone the full plans)?


FTR - I am for some type of AFFORDABLE care for those that cant afford it and those that are taxed for it - but this is not affordable nor sustainable.

Great last line. There should be some quasi public plan for those that can't afford to get it in the private sector, and I have absolutely zero issue with paying taxes to support such a plan...heck, that's one of the things I WANT to pay taxes for. And we have that today with Medicaid. We just need to try to improve it, but don't ask me how. I know fraud and waste drive up costs, let's start there and see how much it saves.

I also don't think people should pay for pre-existing conditions (and I don't have any, not advocating for my own wealth). We don't get to choose whether or not we are born healthy, and those that are unlucky enough to be born with issues, should not endure a lifelong struggle to pay for them. Just my $0.02.

America is number 50 out of 55 countries that were assessed.

.

How many of the 49 countries that were ahead of us, have an open border with Mexico, and millions of poor blacks living in horrible poverty? Answer - zilch.

When you are Norway - a tiny, isolated nation where everyone has an oil well in their backyard, and you don't allow any immigration - it's easy, for a while at least, to score well on those surveys. We allow millions of penniless immigrants to come here, most countries don't.

Move Mexico to the southern border of any of those 49 countries, make it a wide open border, and see how that country scores in 25 years.

How many of the 49 countries that were ahead of us, have an open border with Mexico, and millions of poor blacks living in horrible poverty? Answer - zilch.

When you are Norway - a tiny, isolated nation where everyone has an oil well in their backyard, and you don't allow any immigration - it's easy, for a while at least, to score well on those surveys. We allow millions of penniless immigrants to come here, most countries don't.

Move Mexico to the southern border of any of those 49 countries, make it a wide open border, and see how that country scores in 25 years.

yea ok its the immigrant's that ruined health care you need to find a new Horse to beat

By all means, let us keep chipping away at the benefits of a free marketplace. Let us keep squeezing the life out of it.

Venezuela! Pfft! Nothing there to see. Cuba is the paradise which we keep missing to notice as such. China and Russia trying to move toward capitalism in order to sustain their economies--just a little tick, a little glitch on the road to the final equal, fair, and politically righteous societies controlled by government edict.


A Free market and for profit model hospital's are why health care is where it is today not obama care ... a free market wont fix a problem created by a free market system Heath care isn't a product... it was turned into 1

look at Oklahoma... Free market limited regulations has given them earthquakes their 2nd in the country

Heath care isn't a product... it was turned into 1



it's a service...you have to pay for those too..:)

yea ok its the immigrant's that ruined health care you need to find a new Horse to beat

Sigh...immigrants don't ruin the survey scores, but poverty does. We let a lot of poor people into our country. Most places, don't. That means if you just look at national averages, we are at a disadvantage. You need to compare apples to apples.

Sigh...immigrants don't ruin the survey scores, but poverty does. We let a lot of poor people into our country. Most places, don't. That means if you just look at national averages, we are at a disadvantage. You need to compare apples to apples.

Yes - lets keep filling the low wage brackets with more and more low wage earners - ya know for the jobs others don't want to do - and keep growing the bottom third of the pool. There will then always be poor to champion for. Automation and AI are going to blow the whole thing open anyway and we'll have even LESS people to tax and rerdistribute.

We are out of balance now and have been for some time, this will get drastically worse in the coming 2-3 decades (plus things like GDP/unfunded liabilities) and our kids and GKs will pay for it.

A Free market and for profit model hospital's are why health care is where it is today not obama care ... a free market wont fix a problem created by a free market system Heath care isn't a product... it was turned into 1

Hospitals and health care have been highly regulated for many decades. And the regulations have steadily grown over that time. Neither hospitals nor health care have been operating as free market models for a long time. The costs have steadily risen in that time. As well, the freedom in the market has steadily fallen. "Where it is today," as you put it, is the result of the decades of rising regulations and government intervention in general during that time. The costs, under the increasing regulatory system have not gone down. They have constantly increased. That you don't see the connection that stares you in the face, and blame the condition on something that doesn't exist is indicative of how well Progressive propaganda works.

Ultimately, the failure or success of any political or social or even economic system depends on the willingness of the people to make it work, no matter what the personal costs may be. Whether it is free market or communism, or any variations and gradations in between, the commitment of the people is required to make it all work.

Free markets are not responsible for the distortions imposed on them. They are not responsible for criminal abuses of them. They are certainly not responsible for government regulations which weaken their effectiveness and, worse, diminish their freedom. Freedom, with all the personal responsibilities and virtues which truly enable us to freely interact without diluting the freedom of others, is required to make a free market work. And a free market is the most dynamic way to truly "progress" from primitive poverty to wealthy nations, and thus to have access to the riches that humans are capable of creating and producing.

If we all commit to a free market and practice that commitment with the responsibility and virtue that freedom requires, we will create the wealth and technologies required for a maximum distribution of a good life for all, and that virtue will freely, without dictatorial coercion, provide for those not capable of doing so for themselves.

The fault does not lay in the free market. As Shakespeare would say: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings." When we surrender our freedoms to Caesar, to unlimited, dictatorial government, we degrade and ultimately destroy the free market and make the market a slave to tyrants.

That is why those who love liberty, with its unalienable rights, over security and unearned comforts, prefer free market systems rather than communistic, socialistic, fascistic systems. Those who prefer the comfort of government granted rights and securities tend to favor the socialistic, communistic, fascistic systems. All systems would work if we were all the same and we all committed to one of them. We are not all the same. If we are to live together, we must choose a system to which we all can commit. The Founders created a pretty good one to that end. But those who don't trust the rest of us have been trying for a century to transform our system of limited government and the people's unalienable rights to one of some sort of benevolent dictatorship.

This notion of a free market being the cause of our ills has been discussed in several posts, including conversations with you. You have not refuted nor even responded to most of the content in them (post #7 in this thread for instance). It seems you keep bringing up the same arguments which have been answered and refuted, over and over again. So, wearily we have to keep giving you basically the same responses which you don't seem to have understood the many times before. Debating with you about the free market brings to mind what it takes to keep responding to your blaming it for our problems. It takes the persistence advocated by the phrase "illegitimi non carborundum"

look at Oklahoma... Free market limited regulations has given them earthquakes their 2nd in the country

Oklahoma has had regulations and imposed new ones in response. Nor has the reason for the earthquakes been totally established:
http://www.news9.com/story/24792205/a-new-theory-about-whats-causing-oklahomas-earthquakes

Yes - lets keep filling the low wage brackets with more and more low wage earners - ya know for the jobs others don't want to do - and keep growing the bottom third of the pool. There will then always be poor to champion for. Automation and AI are going to blow the whole thing open anyway and we'll have even LESS people to tax and rerdistribute.

We are out of balance now and have been for some time, this will get drastically worse in the coming 2-3 decades (plus things like GDP/unfunded liabilities) and our kids and GKs will pay for it.

GREAT post.

The last crisis was the subprime mortgage crisis. The next crisis will be what I call the "sovereign debt" crisis. The feds and many states, thanks to the Baby Boomers aging (and living longer) are about to be up to their eyeballs in unfunded liabilities.

Here in CT, we jacked up the income tax last year, and tax revenue collected dropped like a rock (the opposite of what the Democrats said would happen). Just at the time when we need to start paying pensions to Baby Boomers. The Dems will respond, naturally, by raising taxes more, driving more people out. In the private sector, when an entity is stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle of declining revenues and increasing costs, it is called the "death spiral", and it is a perfect term for what is happening. Very tough to get out of.

Jim. It drives me n#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g futs how exposed we are. Big picture is we are forked, little picture is we are forked.

Roll in the high drug use, major addiction, and video gamers reduced from productive society and it is an increasingly smaller pool to provide for the masses.

20TrillBaby in 12 years. Goiing to be 50 trill in the not distant future. The Perpetual Motion machine IS the debt clock.

And we'll be lucky to live through it.

Oklahoma has had regulations and imposed new ones in response. Nor has the reason for the earthquakes been totally established:
http://www.news9.com/story/24792205/a-new-theory-about-whats-causing-oklahomas-earthquakes




LOL One researcher, a Tulsa geologist, is now suggesting something else may be at work -- the weather and aquifers.

amazing nothing like keeping your head buried in the sand

LOL One researcher, a Tulsa geologist, is now suggesting something else may be at work -- the weather and aquifers.

amazing nothing like keeping your head buried in the sand

I am not the one here who has his head buried in only one possibility. And I don't have an ideological investment in any of the possibilities. The cause of earthquakes in Oklahoma is not about the free market.

A free market is not free of government regulation. What it should be free of is regulation which restricts or denies freedom. In order to understand the reason for that in a social compact founded on individual freedom, you have to understand what social and political freedom essentially is. It is not license. It demands that those who wish to be free do not trample on the freedom of others. Interactions must be voluntary and honest. Coercing someone or cheating her is not voluntary interaction. Being cheated is not voluntary, agreed to, interaction. When you coerce or cheat, you are not free because you depend on someone else's involuntary submission to you. In effect, you become a slave to slavery. The slave owner cannot survive without slaves. He is not socially free in his interactions with those he cheats or coerces. His cheating and coercion destroys the intrinsic nature of freedom. Social freedom, in contrast, ensures that everyone is free to depend on his ability to do rather than depending on the submission of others to do for him. It requires the responsibility to assure that all in society are free. It requires the virtue to reign in personal desire to coerce and cheat. And that is the foundation for a truly free market.

License, on the other hand, comes in two forms. Breaking of the social contract by personally coercing or cheating others. Or complicity with government which gives you a license to have legal advantages over others.

So, given that society can impose regulations, what should be the nature of those regulations vis a vis a free market? Such regulations should be of the kind that assures the market is free. Such regulations should, on the one hand, penalize those who distort the market, those who coerce or cheat others. On the other hand, it should not grant license to some giving them advantages over others, and certainly should not give some the legal power or advantage that essentially eliminates competition from others who want to freely engage in the market.

If the people of Oklahoma want to impose regulations for well founded, correct reasons equally on all who want to drill for oil on their territory, they can do so. It can penalize those who violate the regulations. And it must not grant advantages to some at the disadvantage of others.

The health care system has been massively distorted by government regulations. At this point, the regulations have squeezed out competition. They have limited or denied the ability of individuals to freely trade with providers and insurers. They have made the costs for medical devices outrageously expensive. They have made, in general, health care so expensive that individuals cannot afford it. they have driven the system incrementally, and steadily, toward single payer government health care.

None of that is free market. When you blame the free market for those conditions, you have your head buried in the sand that Progressive government constantly throws in your eyes.

Jim. It drives me n#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g futs how exposed we are. Big picture is we are forked, little picture is we are forked.

Roll in the high drug use, major addiction, and video gamers reduced from productive society and it is an increasingly smaller pool to provide for the masses.

20TrillBaby in 12 years. Goiing to be 50 trill in the not distant future. The Perpetual Motion machine IS the debt clock.

And we'll be lucky to live through it.

It will likely be north of 50 trillion before you and I are gone. Some legacy we are leaving for the future.

It will likely be north of 50 trillion before you and I are gone. Some legacy we are leaving for the future.


That is the thing. At 50 trillion and such, massive debt alternatives are few: economic enslavement within the system or abolishing the monetary system and having Big Gov determine the trading standard.

StarTrek harmony it ain't going to be

That is the thing. At 50 trillion and such, massive debt alternatives are few: economic enslavement within the system or abolishing the monetary system and having Big Gov determine the trading standard.

StarTrek harmony it ain't going to be

And no one is talking about it, because people somehow think that it's not 'real debt' when you're talking about a government. Here in CT, the city of Hartford's bond rating just got lowered to "junk", and the state isn't far behind.

The health care system has been massively distorted by government regulations. At this point, the regulations have squeezed out competition. They have limited or denied the ability of individuals to freely trade with providers and insurers. They have made the costs for medical devices outrageously expensive. They have made, in general, health care so expensive that individuals cannot afford it. they have driven the system incrementally, and steadily, toward single payer government health care.


:bs:


BIG Bad Goverment isn't the Problem Single payer is coming and heath insurance company's will be a memory they have already dug there own Grave with unsustainable rate hikes

health care will still happen hospitals doctors and nurses will still work medications will still be made the share holders will be the entire US not just stock holders look for a profit

So I should work 60 hours a week to pay for my Buick health care plan (can't afford the Cadillac plan) AND contribute to someone else's Buick health care plan?

I contribute both with my plan (that also pays into Hospitals that assist the uninsured) and with my taxes that are "redistributed" for me.

The money should have no issue re quality of health care is wrong and frankly unicornrubyslipper talk. Money HAS to be taken into account. Otherwise people will continue to take money out of other people's piles. And more and more and take money from our kids and your kids futures as debt. That should be unacceptable. It is not a bottomless pit.

Should there be more inexpensive ways to distribute health care? More clinics? More community center based medicine? What responsibility lies with those that are receiving this no cost / low cost health care (let alone the full plans)?


FTR - I am for some type of AFFORDABLE care for those that cant afford it and those that are taxed for it - but this is not affordable nor sustainable.

John affordable heath car is not possible its lost ..These company's Love money they will never roll back prices .. not different then the airlines charging for baggage extra leg room even picking a seat . or a Hotel that charges you to park or charges you a resort fee cuz they have a pool once they knew they could charge it and get paid they all do it ... there all in on it its baked into the cake

Maybe the government should stop spending $100 million per F35 fighter "redistributed" some of the 57% of our national defense Budget and send a little to health care which is only 5% .... of the Budget

The health care system has been massively distorted by government regulations. At this point, the regulations have squeezed out competition. They have limited or denied the ability of individuals to freely trade with providers and insurers. They have made the costs for medical devices outrageously expensive. They have made, in general, health care so expensive that individuals cannot afford it. they have driven the system incrementally, and steadily, toward single payer government health care.


:bs:


BIG Bad Goverment isn't the Problem Single payer is coming and heath insurance company's will be a memory they have already dug there own Grave with unsustainable rate hikes

A free market dictum is "charge what the market will bear." Another way of saying that is to charge what a customer or given set of customers are willing to pay. Another version is to give equal value for value. Ignoring the dictum will eventually lead to businesses extinguishing themselves.

What you seem to be saying is that all health insurance companies are too stupid to do what works. That their greed blinds all of them to stupidly commit market suicide. One would think that some enterprising and bright health insurance business which understood the need to follow the dictum would come along and charge what you consider sustainable prices.

Of course, that would more likely occur in a free market.

A government controlled and regulated market might not be free enough, due to regulations, to charge what is both affordable and profitable. And a government controlled market would lead to cronyism, the cooperation of big businesses supporting regulations if they eliminated competition creating larger coerced profits for themselves. It is most likely that all the insurance companies are not too stupid and too greedy to charge what you consider sustainable prices, rather it is more than probable that government mandates cost them too much to do so. And that a few crony companies benefitted from the mandates.

One way to sustain the insurance companies, is for the government to "subsidize" (pay for) the price of insurance for those who can't afford it, and even to subsidize the big crony insurance companies for the losses due to government control and regulation. This all was done in Obamcare.

At what point does it become unsustainable for government to subsidize buyers for all the regulatory costs it imposes on business? In a for profit business sense, or even in a to merely break even sense, that point has already been reached. Health insurance companies have been forced by mandates to price themselves out of business if they're not subsidized, and more buyers of insurance can't afford to pay for it unless they are subsidized. And the national debt is unsustainable.

Now, that is clearly, definitely, obviously, not a free market situation. What should also be obvious to a reasonable person, is that insurance companies are not all so stupid that "they have already dug there own Grave with unsustainable rate hikes" as you put it. That is not a reasonable assumption. Perhaps a Progressive talking point assumption, but not a reasonable one. What is a reasonable assumption is that they have been regulated to the point of unsustainability. That it is coercion, not stupidity, that has dug their grave.

And it is no coincidence that, as you say, single payer is coming. It was already admitted by some Dems that single government payer is what they wanted all along. Government health care has been a Progressive dream and goal since the FDR era. It has been admitted that Obamacare is just another step toward that. It is not only reasonable, but obvious, that the government regulations on health insurance companies imposed by the ACA were meant to dig that grave for them. For them to be, as you say, "a memory."


health care will still happen hospitals doctors and nurses will still work

Of course all that will happen. It happens even in some of the poorest most dictatorial godforsaken countries. It is one of the items that those governments will at least minimally provide or risk revolution. And it will be provided in most, or all, of single payer systems at a level below what most of the population would get in a free market.

medications will still be made the share holders will be the entire US not just stock holders look for a profit

Sure, medications will still be made. But innovation will be levelled to a status quo. It takes a lot of motivation to strive for new and better stuff. The profit motive has been the strongest and most sustainable motivator in human history. We don't live in a fictional Star Trek world where most go where no man has gone before just for the sake of mankind. For most, it takes more than feeling good about yourself to go along for the ride. For most, it is easier to repeat than to innovate. But if we can get a lot more than we already have, a lot more are willing to take the trip.

And your notion that the entire US, the entire population will be the shareholder in single payer government run and paid healthcare is ridiculous. Shareholders invest for profit. Explain how the taxpayers all paying for the entire health care system creates a profit for them.

And how do they all profit equally? If the "profit" is healthcare and if all get the same healthcare but some pay more than others and some pay nothing, do all profit equally? Isn't the only way all could profit equally is if all had identical economic conditions--the same economic worth--same pay, etc. etc. Is that an attractive economic and social model for you?

Isn't investing a means to get more than you paid for the investment. Otherwise, just keep the money rather than investing it. Go ahead, build a car and pay the entire cost of building it, then buy the car from yourself for more than you paid to make it. Where, exactly, is the profit in that. Oh, you say no, no . . . the entire population will pay some groups of people to build cars for everybody. And then the cars, which will be identical, will be distributed, at no further cost, to the entire population. So there will be no profit. We shall all equally pay exactly what it costs to build a car and have that car for the equal amount of money we spent.

That sort of economic system has been tried several times in the past. The attempts have not been sustainable. Simply put, human nature doesn't fit into that box.

Maybe the government should stop spending $100 million per F35 fighter "redistributed" some of the 57% of our national defense Budget and send a little to health care which is only 5% .... of the Budget

Sadly it is more like 140 million a pop on F35 (more actually as that number does not included engines). I could find plenty of waste in procurement and more than happy top debate the ills of defense procurement and Beltway Bandits.

But you do not underscore your seriousness on math or debate when you put out numbers like that : "57% of our national defense Budget and send a little to health care which is only 5% ". Those numbers are false, and at best highly misleading. The only time numbers are close to yours is when you are parsing discretionary spending. See image 1 below from CBO. This has Defense around 45% of discretionary spending and health around 23% (combined national health and Veteran/VA spending). But those numbers don't include most of Healthcare which is Medicare and Medicaid If you look at total budget (3.9 Trillion) then defense is down around 15% and health including Medicare / Medicaid are around 28%.

So argue your point but establish a consistent baseline for your numbers: You can't use gross numbers in one pie and compare to net numbers in the other pie


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/52xxx/52410-Land-Budget_Discretionary.png

How Government Regulations Made Healthcare So Expensive

A long article but brief summary of how government intervention incrementally over time helped to create excessively profitable monopolies of doctors, of hospitals, of insurance, etc. Somewhat tough and boring to read, but give it a try if you're interested in a basic understanding of the rise in cost of healthcare:

https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive

A very, VERY, important video to watch regarding the high cost of health care, and why "health care is not really that expensive" according to the doctor in this video. And how it would not really be that expensive if health care was truly free market based:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Y8vGuBkrk

Very informative
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A very, VERY, important video to watch regarding the high cost of health care, and why "health care is not really that expensive" according to the doctor in this video. And how it would not really be that expensive if health care was truly free market based:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Y8vGuBkrk


you do love your you tube echo chamber


but not to worry Trumps going to blow up the whole thing up!! i hope nobody is buying open market .. He just bit the hand that feeds him

Right off the guys web site https://surgerycenterok.com/?procedure_category=urology#jump In an effort to make care accessible to all of our patients regardless of their financial situation, we’ve partnered with Parasail to find patient‐friendly payment plans Vasovasostomy $5,300.00* Total Knee Arthroplasty (Knee Replacement)i
$15,499*
not sure how thats less than Insurance

you do love your you tube echo chamber


If you have nothing relevant to say about the video, why do you bother to reply with stupid, useless, junk?

If you have nothing relevant to say about the video, why do you bother to reply with stupid, useless, junk?

stupid, useless, junk?

Happy to see that you feel prices from his web site are useless junk?

But your you tube videos are not stupid, useless, junk? produced to generates Views ... and promote his business model .. packaged as a cure for health care ...


nothing relevant to say about the video or do mean agree with the video because his prices are relevant

Recent quote by our President "Take a look at who those insurance companies support and I guarantee you one thing. It’s not Donald Trump.” The Repub. lack of compassion and hate for "those" people is pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

stupid, useless, junk?

Happy to see that you feel prices from his web site are useless junk?

But your you tube videos are not stupid, useless, junk? produced to generates Views ... and promote his business model .. packaged as a cure for health care ...


nothing relevant to say about the video or do mean agree with the video because his prices are relevant

Have you compared his prices to those that other Hospitals charge insurance companies. Point is that other mainstream doctors and their surgeons charge way more. If you think that insurance makes those surgeries cheaper, you're not considering overall costs. Major surgeries are not something a person has every month. The bulk of the surgeries on his list are once or twice in a lifetime. And many or most people will not require most of those surgeries. Insurance premiums with high deductibles occur every month. And the deductible will occur with every surgery. And the costs get higher every year. The overall cost of healthcare is far more expensive under our insurance/government paid system. We all pay for that. Add up all the insurance premiums you pay in a lifetime for a service and for the great majority of people who live the age of life expectancy will have paid far more in premiums than the actual price you paid for that which was insured.

His point was that health care is way more expensive than it would be in a free market based system. His free market based prices are way lower than the regulated system imposes on healthcare. That is what the debate should be about. Not out of context prices.

You didn't discuss any of that. You showed some numbers without context and made a snarky comment about me and a supposed echo chamber. For me, that was useless junk.

this is great...

Trump Faithfully Executes Obamacare; Media, Democrats Go Nuts

By Andrew C. McCarthy
— October 14, 2017

Why don’t the stories say: “President Trump Faithfully Executes Affordable Care Act”?

In report after sky-is-falling report, the journalism wing of the media-Democrat complex castigates the president over his decision to — as the New York Times put it — “scrap subsidies to health insurance companies that help pay out of pocket costs of low-income people.” These subsidy payments are “critical” to sustaining the “Affordable Care Act.” Without them, the Grey Lady frets, “President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement” could “unravel.” To add insult to injury, the paper implies that Trump’s “determination to dismantle [Obamacare] on his own” is a malign attack on the rule of law, coming only after Republicans reneged on their vow to repeal it by legislation.

It’s ironic. Notwithstanding the many outrageous, mendacious things the president says and tweets, the press is aghast that his “fake news” tropes against mainstream-media stalwarts resonate with much of the country. Well, if you want to know why, this latest Obamacare coverage is why. What Trump has actually done is end the illegal payoffs without which insurance companies have no rational choice but to jack up premiums or flee the Obamacare exchanges. The culprits here are the charlatans who gave us Obamacare. To portray Trump as the bad guy is not merely fake news. It’s an out-and-out lie.

Which is to say: It’s about as honest as the Democrats’ labeling of Obamacare as the Affordable Care Act.

The subsidy payments to insurance companies may be “critical” to sustaining the ACA, but they are not provided for in the ACA. The Obamacare law did not appropriate them. No legislation appropriates them. They are and have always been illegal.

These payments are blatantly illegal. The federal district court in Washington so ruled last year. For what it’s worth, I believe Judge Rosemary Collyer was wrong to grant the House of Representatives standing to sue the Obama administration. The Constitution gives Congress its own powerful tools to confront presidential lawlessness; the Article I branch does not need the Article III branch to do its heavy lifting. That said, Judge Collyer’s decision on the merits is unassailable.

The media-Democrat narrative that President Trump is imperiously flouting the rule of law has it backwards. In cutting off the insurance-company subsidies, Trump is enforcing the ACA as written, consistent with his constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully. It was President Obama who usurped Congress’s power of the purse by directing the payment of taxpayer funds that lawmakers had not appropriated.

Finally, the claim that Trump is “unraveling” the ACA would be laughable were it not so cynical. You can’t unravel something by honoring its terms. Obamacare is unraveling because it was designed to unravel. This is not a bug, it’s a feature.

this is great...

Trump Faithfully Executes Obamacare; Media, Democrats Go Nuts

By Andrew C. McCarthy
— October 14, 2017

Why don’t the stories say: “President Trump Faithfully Executes Affordable Care Act”?

In report after sky-is-falling report, the journalism wing of the media-Democrat complex castigates the president over his decision to — as the New York Times put it — “scrap subsidies to health insurance companies that help pay out of pocket costs of low-income people.” These subsidy payments are “critical” to sustaining the “Affordable Care Act.” Without them, the Grey Lady frets, “President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement” could “unravel.” To add insult to injury, the paper implies that Trump’s “determination to dismantle [Obamacare] on his own” is a malign attack on the rule of law, coming only after Republicans reneged on their vow to repeal it by legislation.

It’s ironic. Notwithstanding the many outrageous, mendacious things the president says and tweets, the press is aghast that his “fake news” tropes against mainstream-media stalwarts resonate with much of the country. Well, if you want to know why, this latest Obamacare coverage is why. What Trump has actually done is end the illegal payoffs without which insurance companies have no rational choice but to jack up premiums or flee the Obamacare exchanges. The culprits here are the charlatans who gave us Obamacare. To portray Trump as the bad guy is not merely fake news. It’s an out-and-out lie.

Which is to say: It’s about as honest as the Democrats’ labeling of Obamacare as the Affordable Care Act.

The subsidy payments to insurance companies may be “critical” to sustaining the ACA, but they are not provided for in the ACA. The Obamacare law did not appropriate them. No legislation appropriates them. They are and have always been illegal.

These payments are blatantly illegal. The federal district court in Washington so ruled last year. For what it’s worth, I believe Judge Rosemary Collyer was wrong to grant the House of Representatives standing to sue the Obama administration. The Constitution gives Congress its own powerful tools to confront presidential lawlessness; the Article I branch does not need the Article III branch to do its heavy lifting. That said, Judge Collyer’s decision on the merits is unassailable.

The media-Democrat narrative that President Trump is imperiously flouting the rule of law has it backwards. In cutting off the insurance-company subsidies, Trump is enforcing the ACA as written, consistent with his constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully. It was President Obama who usurped Congress’s power of the purse by directing the payment of taxpayer funds that lawmakers had not appropriated.

Finally, the claim that Trump is “unraveling” the ACA would be laughable were it not so cynical. You can’t unravel something by honoring its terms. Obamacare is unraveling because it was designed to unravel. This is not a bug, it’s a feature.


Just because the sky may not be falling on you or I. Means nothing to those who the sky is falling on


President Trump's decision Thursday to end subsidy payments to health insurance companies is expected to raise premiums for middle-class families and cost the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars.

"Ending the CSR payments is another sign that President Trump is doing what he can to undermine the stability of the individual market under the ACA," wrote Tim Jost, professor emeritus of law at Washington and Lee University

The decision will most directly affect middle-class families who buy their own insurance without financial help from the government. Consumers who earn more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level — an individual with income of about $48,000 or a family of four that makes more than $98,400 — will likely see their costs for coverage rise next year by an average of about 20 percent nationwide.

Ironically, the decision to end the $7 billion-a-year cost-sharing payments is likely to cost the federal government more than making them — nearly $200 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.




this guy was making sense until he went all conspiracy theory " The Democrats grasp this. They know they can accomplish The Grand Plan only by inuring the public to it incrementally. That is what Obamacare is built to do. It is intended to unravel, only gradually and with the right villains taking the blame, while the government — having actually caused the problems — emerges as the savior."
Each juncture of the ACA’s inevitable collapse is orchestrated to highlight greedy insurance companies who opt out, or ruthless Republicans — and now, of course, the monstrous Trump — who cut off desperately needed funds. The idea is that when the system finally implodes, the public will be so contemptuous of the insurers and the GOP, they will see the government — the Democrats’ panacea of “free” universal health care — as the only viable option.

This is why the role played by the Democrats’ media allies is so vital




.. this guy was making sense until he went all conspiracy theory ^^^^^ He thinks Democratic were that smart to plant this seed 8 years ago to get single player LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso

Democratic were that smart to plant this seed 8 years ago to get single player



I think devious and dishonest would be more accurate....it's been pointed out that this was the intention and purpose repeatedly over the past 8 years..that the Democratic continually lied through the entire process was yes, an indication that their motives were not necessarily true or honest.....

Neither side is true or honest. Get a grip
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso

Democratic were that smart to plant this seed 8 years ago to get single player



I think devious and dishonest would be more accurate....it's been pointed out that this was the intention and purpose repeatedly over the past 8 years..that the Democratic continually lied through the entire process was yes, an indication that their motives were not necessarily true or honest.....

no argument with that I am just saying the (Dems ) are not that forwarded thinking .. to hatch such a plan as the article suggest

ps why whole quote was "He thinks Democratic were that smart to plant this seed 8 years ago to get single player LOL" The author of the article

no argument with that I am just saying the (Dems ) are not that forwarded thinking ..



so much for being "progressive"...huh?

Just because the sky may not be falling on you or I. Means nothing to those who the sky is falling on


President Trump's decision Thursday to end subsidy payments to health insurance companies is expected to raise premiums for middle-class families and cost the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars.

"Ending the CSR payments is another sign that President Trump is doing what he can to undermine the stability of the individual market under the ACA," wrote Tim Jost, professor emeritus of law at Washington and Lee University

The decision will most directly affect middle-class families who buy their own insurance without financial help from the government. Consumers who earn more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level — an individual with income of about $48,000 or a family of four that makes more than $98,400 — will likely see their costs for coverage rise next year by an average of about 20 percent nationwide.

Ironically, the decision to end the $7 billion-a-year cost-sharing payments is likely to cost the federal government more than making them — nearly $200 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.




this guy was making sense until he went all conspiracy theory " The Democrats grasp this. They know they can accomplish The Grand Plan only by inuring the public to it incrementally. That is what Obamacare is built to do. It is intended to unravel, only gradually and with the right villains taking the blame, while the government — having actually caused the problems — emerges as the savior."
Each juncture of the ACA’s inevitable collapse is orchestrated to highlight greedy insurance companies who opt out, or ruthless Republicans — and now, of course, the monstrous Trump — who cut off desperately needed funds. The idea is that when the system finally implodes, the public will be so contemptuous of the insurers and the GOP, they will see the government — the Democrats’ panacea of “free” universal health care — as the only viable option.

This is why the role played by the Democrats’ media allies is so vital




.. this guy was making sense until he went all conspiracy theory ^^^^^ He thinks Democratic were that smart to plant this seed 8 years ago to get single player LOL

Obamacare was supposed to lower health insurance costs by $2500 a year on average.

You were supposed to be able to keep your plan.

You were supposed to be able to keep your doctor.

Liberals say if we repeal Obamacare, a million zillion jillion people will die as a result. If that's true, how did these people survive without Obamacare before it was signed into law? Where were all the dead bodies of the people who died for lack of Obamacare, before it became law? You'd think we all would have noticed the stench?

Healthcare is a stinking, Godawful mess for too many people. Obamacare accomplished very little of what it was supposed to, clearly it isn't the answer...I'm not saying I know what the answer is, but it's not the ACA.

so much for being "progressive"...huh?

They're forward-thinking for the good things, but incompetent at being manipulative...