A most interesting article in this morning's paper, the Idaho Statesman.
Seems that they think they need around 5,000 sign-ups per month (through March) to pay for the program (there is a 1.5% tax on each policy sold). So far, there have been a grand total of 100 purchases of an ACA policy; the inevitable result will be that the 1.5% tax on each policy will have to radically rise to support the program. Say to 1500% instead of 1.5%? But that's OK - it's just another cost of health care we'll all pay for. A cost that wasn't there until the ACA came about.
The executive director of the Idaho system (salary: $175.000) awarded a no-bid contract to a former exchange board member for technology consulting, to the tune of $375,000. But that's OK - the $550,000 dollars are just another cost of health care we'll all pay for. A cost that wasn't there until the ACA came about.
It has come to light that, in Idaho, a prospective customer must input all personal information just to see the plans available. To window shop, in other words, without ever buying. But that's OK - the massive loss of privacy is just something that wasn't there until the ACA came about.
Others all over the country have reported massive increases in deductibles, but that's OK - it just another cost of health care we'll all pay for. A cost that wasn't there until the ACA came about.
So can we all go back to using "Obamacare" and dump the PC but misleading "ACA" , because there just isn't anything at all "affordable" about the ACA. It is all cost, with no return.
This whole fiasco will collapse upon itself and the tax payer will once again take a beating.
Wait and see. Seriously. Unless you are one of those frothing at the mouth types who just believes Obama is the devil incarnate (I don't think you are) then it's reasonable to conclude that those in the White House are not insane. Is there an element of insecurity around such a significant change? Of course there is. It would be odd if there wasn't. But the people voted for this change, and the Senate and House of Representatives reflected the will of the people (for once) in voting for it too. If it works, great. If it doesn't the apocalypse will not be upon us. It can be changed. I really don't see the need for all the hysterics. I think you mentioned somewhere that it impacts negatively on you personally. Would your opinion be the same if your personal situation had been improved by the ACA rather than worsened by it?
No, Obama isn't the devil, but neither is there a lot of "insecurity" about this fiasco. It WILL NOT WORK as it has been described; the descriptions and promises are twisted and spun beyond any recognition away from the truth.
Yes, it can be changed, although it will not be (if ever really started) until major damage is done.
It was NOT voted for by the people; the people, in their ignorance and greed, voted for free health care - something that cannot happen. Even the lie that people knew and wanted merely "cheaper" health care, voting for the same, cannot be given to them and the ACA makes no effort whatsoever to do so.
My situation is indeed impacted; like millions of others I will be forced to purchase something that will do exactly nothing to help my own horrible health care situation (no insurance whatsoever). I like to think that I believe in and care enough for our country that I would still be against it were it to actually benefit me personally while still having the same projected effect on the country as a whole. This country CANNOT AFFORD what the politicians have promised the ACA will deliver. It probably can afford what the bill actually gives, althought that is debatable itself, but there is zero doubt that it can afford to instantly provide free health care to an additional 50 million people while lowering costs for another 200 million. All while keeping or increasing the level of health care Americans demand.
"It WILL NOT WORK as it has been described"
Think about what you are saying. Either everyone in the White House involved with the drafting and implementing of the ACA is deliberately implementing a system they know will not work. Or no one in the White House is capable of understanding the complexities as well as you and the critics do. The third option is that those involved with the ACA understand the complexities as well as, if not better than, you and the critics, have weighed up the financial, social and political costs, against what is needed and have developed a piece of legislation they believe will at least begin to address those needs, in the full knowledge that it is imperfect, but with a view to improving it over time. Which do you honestly think is most likely?
It is bad karma to not believe in Obama care.
I know little about Karma. I do know that expressing an honest doubt through reasoned argument is one thing.. but implying that those in the White House are deliberately implementing something they know will not work, or that you understand the situation better than anyone in government, is entirely another. That seems a bit paranoid and hysterical to me.
Karma. As in ignoring costs to be paid through taxes? As in ignoring skyrocketing deductibles and out of pocket limits in favor of cheaper insurance? As in pretending that buying insurance eliminates all other health care costs?
Are those the things that the Karma is going to produce?
Well, I personally, do not believe it is bad karma.
But, if you spread around that indoctrination, then Obama Care
Bad karma? The whole thing is this. We were all presented with something that did not happen. Points to review.
1. The medical excise tax. They taxed fishing polls and artificial worms as medical devices. LOL that is true.
2. There are millions of people who worked hard and are now being dropped from there insurance and some being dropped to part time. Two of which are family of mine.
This was a bad thing that someone decided to seed into our lives and we are not being American in any way to even try and support this.
Those that do will no longer support it when it finally bites them in some way. Word of warning. It hurts when it bites.
I feel so let down by my country and government. I was American and supported my country but my country let me down.
There is a fourth option as well, and even a fifth.
4) not a single soul in the white house ever read and understood all the pieces. Each small section makes good sense and is workable, it's just the entirety that will not and no one every studied that.
5) The white house, as will as a great many liberals, close their eyes to the reality of the bill. The expected, hoped for good that it will do in giving everyone health care is such a wonderful goal that the cost is ignored. It is not to be discussed, it is not to be considered. DO YOU WANT CHILDREN TO DIE? seems to be the rallying cry of this group, and you hear it all over the country. What you do NOT hear are honest estimates of cost from that group.
Of the 5, my vote goes to #5. The moral good to be done outweighs any cost; the solution is to ignore or lie about costs. And that is exactly what is being done, with lies ranging from outright lies to "forgetting" some costs to hiding others in taxes and pretending they do not exist as a result.
Sure does need to be changed because it is corporate welfare for the insurance companies that forces people to buy some insurance that they do not need or want. Today I found that:
Self-employed guy who had insurance but not up 2 Obama's new 'standard' rates increased 400%, partly due 2 no choice but pay for unwanted benefits such as pregnancy coverage for his 58 year old wife.
It would be like having the minimum car insurance required to suddenly include collision for a rust red & primer gray jalopy.
Your anecdotal evidence does not convince me the ACA is not a good piece of legislation.
And yet...that anecdote points out a very real problem with the ACA in that people are forced to buy coverage they don't need, or coverage that is priced far beyond what their actuarial costs will be. Old men must buy pregnancy coverage to keep costs of that coverage down. All must buy coverage for birth control so that a few can enjoy that particular recreation at no cost. Young healthy people are charged premiums far beyond what their expected costs are (the basis of insurance, after all) in order to lower premiums for high risk purchasers.
All in the name of "free" health care that is merely another method to forcibly share the wealth that more capable citizens manage to accumulate. That and increase insurance company profits...
If I pointed to someone who is now paying less, for more health coverage because of the ACA, would you be convinced that the ACA is a great piece of legislation? Anecdotal evidence is not hard to come by in the age of the web, but it wouldn't be sensible to form an opinion on the basis of such evidence alone, and it certainly wouldn't be wise to develop public health policy on that basis.
Are you then claiming that it is only anecdote that young healthy people will be used to pay for older, unhealthy people? Is it an anecdote that birth control is required of every policy, regardless of the purchaser?
Because that's all I said - not that a particular buyer's experience indicated anything.
You said "...that anecdote points out a very real problem with the ACA". If that's the case, then if I share an anecdote about someone who is better off because of the ACA, does that point out the very real benefits of the ACA? Incidentally, "pointing out" something is the same thing as "indicating" something.
True, and there are definite benefits for a small number of people. There always are when someone else foots the bill.
There are definite drawbacks for a small number of people. There always are when a significant policy change occurs.
Unfortunately this theory doesn't seem to use the correct word. "Small" is not really applicable when it seems to cross 50% or more. I'm guessing, of course, but it sounds like 75% of the people are going to pay more, have worse plans or both.
Plus, it seems that many of those hurt are going to be those that cannot afford to be hurt at all.
whoa there Nellie....
Do you remember the Senate antics that went on to get enough Democrat votes to get it passed? The pork brides, the $600 million state grant, etc. etc....
Do you really want to stand by the statement that the Senate and House were doing the people's will?
Would the political SWAT teams and coercion have been necessary if they were doing "the people's will?"
No, I think both houses were doing the "Party's" will.
Regardless of the other Obamacare facts being debated - you ought to at least own up to that one.
Whoa there do you remember how we had a vote on this Obama guy (of Obamacare fame) just like a year ago and we all voted and stuff.... and kept that guy as our president by an almost 5% margin?
How the majority of Americans voted for Democrat President, Congress and Senate.
Will of the people.
Your first point is not relevant - it occurred after the the issue I was discussing, and has no bearing - but I will say this - the American voters will get what we deserve - good or bad
But that the majority of voters elected the 2010 legislators is correct.
But... is it really the will of the people those nays that were bribed to becoming yeas were representing?
Were they voting the will of the people when they were against the law, or when they voted for it after the political arm twisting and buy-offs?
I really don't have the desire to dig out all the details of the shenanigans that went on to get enough Democrat no's to change their votes - so I hope your memory is long enough to remember the 2 week political circus that played out on our national media. But here are the two that were most publicized:
*Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) changed to yes vote after receiving commitment for $300 million in Federal money for Louisiana - at the time, Democrats were short of the needed votes without her
** Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat, changed his no vote to yes - even after polls showed 67% of his state's voters were against it before he changed his vote - will of the people? Or pay-off for Nelson?
*** etc. etc. etc. until Reid was able to get the final Democrats needed to reach 60 votes
Yeah, that's the will of the people - when their representatives vote for something the majority of them are against.
Please. You have the gall to accuse the Democrats of "antics" after the stunt the GOP just pulled. Do you really want to suggest the GOP was doing the people's will when it almost caused a default. As for owning up, perhaps you would like to own up to the fact that the GOP has been hijacked by Tea Party fundamentalists who's actions have damaged the country's economic standing, and they have been allowed to do so by spineless moderate Republicans who are more worried about being challenged in the primaries than doing what's right for their country. Antics indeed.
uuhh... Don, calm down. Take a breath....
First, I was speaking to a particular issue, not political antics overall, so your point isn't on point unless of course you missed my point and are talking about another point. In which case let me point you back to my original point...
... the discussion of the passage of Obamacare being the "will of the people"... do you believe I just made up "the antics" I described as taking place in order for the Democrats to get the votes they needed to pass it?
Or do just believe I am mistaken in calling them antics (although I think Shenanigans was the term I used.)
Did you know that "calm down" is one of the worst things you can say to someone who isn't calm? It's like a red flag to a bull. Conflict management 101, but not to worry I am as calm as someone reading a book called "How to be Calm" while floating on the calm waters of lake placid in a boat that is becalmed.
Fortunately you don't get to dictate the points that the participants in a forum discussion can speak to. Whatever point you were making, I was making the wider point about political antics, and how people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Get the point?
hmmm... 101 lessons huh? Is there a 101 lesson about assumptions?
Of course participants can discuss any points they wish - as you are illustrating. but why reply to a specific point if it is not your intention to address that point? Or as you seem to indicate, "Whatever the point you were making..." - did you not understand the point you appeared to be responding to?
So why do you make a "wider" point, instead of addressing the point being discussed?
Is expanding the conversation your way of avoiding the validity of a specific point?
As for your "glass houses" quip, perhaps if I explained that I am not a Republican supporter it might help you avoid further erroneous assumptions.
As for, getting the point, nope, not sure I do. I was discussing apples, you come along discussing oranges - and then ask if I understand now. So nope, I am confused, and I am afraid to make the assumption that you can't disprove my original point - because perhaps you feel you can, but just don't want to.
So you see, I do have some 101 courses under my belt. If that was your point.
Why make a wider point? Because your argument is a non-argument. What you call antics is actually just politicking, and it is how real politics works.
Congress represents the interests of a plurality of constituents. That requires negotiation and compromise (as opposed to threatening to force a default if you can't get what you want). One is the art of politics, the other is the art of hostage taking.
You also fail to mention the only reason the Democrats needed 60 votes in the Senate is because the GOP suddenly decided a Bill drafted with bipartisan ideas (and Republican votes in committee) was unconstitutional. That is around the same time the GOP started behaving out of a pathological hatred (read fear) of Barack Obama, rather than in the interests of the country.
So yes, I absolutely stand by the statement that, despite the best efforts of the GOP, the will of the people was done when the ACA passed in 2009, but don't take my word for it. What happened when the architect of the ACA ran for reelection in 2012 against a candidate who ran on a platform of repealing the ACA? Mitt something wasn't it. Nice hair I seem to recall.
Well, at least I see why we disagree. Your defense of what I viewed as shameful political bribery and coercion - partisan politics, not the will of the people, as the art of real politics indicates we are at an impasse.
What I see as reason and logic is obviously not the same as what you see.
I cannot see a senator changing a firmly stated no vote, with the reasons for it being a no vote publicly explained - to a yes vote in exchange for $300 million in federal money - as the will of the people.
You appear to accept that as just "real politics"
So I will stand by my point that the passage of the bill was a result of partisan will - not the will of the people, and you will stand by your assertion that it is the will of the people because they elected those reps.
I still believe that elected officials are supposed to have principles and represent the people that elected them - not just represent the party they belong to.
Let me be clear. If someone asks for money from the government to be deposited into their Swiss bank account in exchange for a vote, then I'm with you on the bribery and corruption thing. But if in exchange for a vote they ask for funding from the government for a project/initiative in their home state that will benefit people in that state, then that's just politics. Is it a fair to suggest that person is demonstrating a parochial view and not considering the good of the country as a whole? I think so. But I don't think it's fair (or accurate) to describe that as corruption or bribery.
In relation to whether it was the will of the people, of course you failed to answer the main question: What happened when the architect of the ACA ran for reelection in 2012 against a candidate who ran on a platform of repealing the ACA? Remember what I said about making a wider point? Well this is is the wider point.
Now that's an interesting concept indeed. That agreeing to provide a vote for a politician that will use their political skills to dig into the pot of money "donated" by the people to run the country with and give it to them isn't a bribe or isn't corrupt.
Or course it is both, whether put into a bank account to to purchase a produce/service. Whether for an individual or a group of individuals. It is corrupt and it is a bribe.
To call it "politics as usual" clearly shows something that is desperately wrong in our government today. We as a people have forgotten how to tell right from wrong. Forgotten what theft is, and decided that if it is to our benefit then it's OK.
Welcome to the world of Pork, where the buying of votes at public expense is not only accepted but promoted as a good thing somehow.
Is Nebraska not part of the country? Are Nebraskans less entitled to Federal funds than, say, Ohioans for some reason? Why's that? Didn't the Nebraskans elect a senator on the understanding that he would represent their interests? So by seeking funds for projects that will benefit his State, isn't he doing what he was elected to do?
That's not to say real corruption does not exist. If he were seeking to benefit a private corporation that had paid him handsomely for doing so, that would be corruption. I think it is perfectly legitimate for a representative or Senator to try to do the best for his or her state though. It would be useful sometimes if they could consider benefit of the country as a whole, rather than just their own state, but that doesn't constitute corruption in my view.
Yep, that's what he was elected to do. Garner as much of other people's money as he possible can and give it to the people of Nebraska that are too cheap to buy the things they want with their own money.
Does electing a politician to be a thief make it right? I don't think so, not in my opinion.
That's one of the big problems with our government and people today - the primary thrust is not the good of the nation, it is how much "free" money can I get. The federal government has turned into a giant money bag, that everybody wants a piece of. How about we just empty that bag and let states, towns and such take care of their OWN needs and wants instead of requiring others to do it for them?
Spin it however you want to, pork barrel spending is wrong. It is wrong of the politician and it is wrong of the people that will continue to reelect him in the hopes he can get someone else to pay for the projects they want but don't want to pay for.
Oh, and no Nebraskans are not "entitled" to federal money. Money from Ohio, for instance. They are "entitled" to whatever they state collects from it's citizenry and, outside of an emergency (not made by Nebraska), that's all.
So it is not bribery because they only benefited indirectly, as in the good will of the people that did benefit directly? Isn't that similar to the "Robin Hood" concept?
(ps. I referred to it as bribery and coercion, did corruption pop into your mind?)
No, your wider question is/was not the main point - the point was the initial passage of the bill being the will of the people. Why not stick to addressing that?
You feel the "hardball" politics used to achieve passage is ok because it is "just the way things are" - while I feel such logic is one of the main reasons we are where we are - politically.
With Congress' public approval rate in the low double to single digits - you view may be in the minority.
wilderness, you will never convince the "true believers" on any issue, especially on O'BamaCare. I have spent some time trying to discuss it with them and they are convinced, despite the facts, that "Yes They Can". They will never let the facts interfere with their beliefs. They truly believe that whatever anyone says they will force their will on everyone. My health insurance premiums DOUBLED and I pay $50 more for emergency room visits. Only God knows what else has happened to my coverage.
A Facebook friend of mine just posted about how his wife has developed cancer, and her Blue Cross/Blue Shield's major medical coverage was just cancelled because of the Obamacare rules. So she's basically being forced to accept Obamacare which may not cover her needs either....................
This is some crazy carp that's being forced upon America.
Until the last few years, I honestly never would've believed a President could get by with such madness in this Country.
OP, you do realize that the U.S. spends up to twice as much per capita on healthcare than any country with universal healthcare. The problem is, Americans see universal healthcare as some sort of socialist/communist boogeyman. Maybe if they'd ditch the Cold War mentality, some of these politicians could stop spending over 17% of the country's GDP on healthcare. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP
Granted, you can have the best of both worlds. Australia, for example, provides universal healthcare to those under a certain income bracket and allows those who can afford insurance to use private healthcare.
No matter how you look at it, the U.S. ranks quite low (37th, I believe) in terms of healthcare quality compared to its counterparts like the U.K. or Canada.
You rip on Obamacare, but it's an attempt to reconcile a system that conservatives refuse to let go of. America and change just don't work well together, and nobody can deny that. All I can say is, I'm glad I'm Canadian and can watch this turmoil from a spectator's view.
Very little here I can agree with.
I do not believe at all that the US spends double the per capita amount of anyone else. The biggest problem here is that things that are built in to our health care costs (physician training, for instance) are not in other countries such as Australia. It ends up that no one wants to put out the massive effort to give a fair comparison.
And do Australians off insurance receive the same care? Somehow I doubt it...
I do not believe that the US ranks only 37th in terms of quality; again the measurements used make too big a difference. How do you quantify, for example, the waiting time for a breast enlargement in terms of quality? It obviously matters, but such things are never mentioned because it's next to impossible to get agreement on what matters, or how much, and what doesn't.
I didn't find any attempt at all to reconcile a system the conservatives liked. It was instead pushed through congress with almost zero discussion and not even time to READ it.
Heavens! Do you believe that the USA is the only country in the world to train physicians?
Breast enlargements are not, in most cases, anything to do with health care - they are purely cosmetic,
The US does not pay to train physicians, while Australia does. The result is that a doctor bill in the US includes sufficient "profit" to cover the cost of that education, while in Australia it is not necessary. That cost has already been paid by taxes - a cost that is not included in health care costs.
Breast work - that's kind of the point. I'd have to guess that the procedure is more common in the US than anywhere else in the world, AND that the cost of those "treatments" are included in US health care costs.
As noted Australia includes all heath care staff training in it's healthcare costs automatically. (awfully convenient and helpful of them).
Breast reductions are not counted because they are not essential care and thus do not meet the international guidelines for costings. In ether the USA or Australia, or anywhere ranked by the WHO guidelines.
There is a separate cosmetic and optional medical spending category, the two to do not overlap.
No we spend significantly more than double.
and per operation it's more like quadruple. (Because healthcare is free more heath care actually gets delivered).
Physician training is the only difference (and nurses) but I actually have wonderful news for you.(I actually called the Australian Department of Health) Australia includes ALL public costs to training healthcare staff in it's healthcare spending it in fact includes ALL healthcare related spending in that figure.
There are no uninsured Australians, every one is automatically covered at birth until the day they die.
As for the ranking it's decided on by a panel of experts in the field on the basis of the quality of care for essential services (no breast enhancements) and that includes wait times. The analysis is done on what impact it has on the recovery and positive outcome of patients so they know statistically what affects outcomes and they test all these variables. It's incredibly accurate actually at judging which country will get the most positive outcomes and the least negative ones in essential care.
"Australia, for example, provides universal healthcare to those under a certain income bracket and allows those who can afford insurance to use private healthcare. "
Not that it actually matters, but who should I believe? The person who has taken every opportunity to knock every thing possible about the US or someone who does not seem to have an axe to grind? Suggestions?
Key word is ALLOWS you can take on a private healthcare provider but you are automatically covered if you are not on one thus no one is uninsured.
I'll have proof for you in a minute but the two statements don't contradict.
Edit: "The public health system is called Medicare, which funds free universal access"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_car … #Insurance
Congrats on ignoring the rest of my last post.
I saw it. Does the panel include efforts to compensate for American obesity as well? Or smoking, drinking and drug use? How about diet and highly modified foods? Or just assume that all nationalities will heal at the same rate, given the same care?
Yes those things are accounted for in that those things modify the outcome of the treatment. For example they keep stats on people with serious type diabetes. If a person resents with such as well as morbid obesity and smoking then the predicted outcome is modified to deal with that scenario. In that instance the patient surviving to the age of 60 might be a success (for example, I am not a doctor) on the other hand if a person is young and fit but has genetic diabetes then requiring an amputation would be a failure. etc. raw stats are used too.
The truth though is that America comes out of this looking much better than it actually should not worse for two reasons #1 the last WHO study was in 2006 subsequent studies by other bodies have found that since the US's healthcare had plummeted even further since at that point the US was in the end of the huge pre financial crisis bubble. #2 The US performs fewer essential operations yearly than almost any other first world nation because it does not offer universal healthcare as a result people go to the doctor less since it's expensive.
As for the issues you mention the WHO actually holds several of them to be the fault of health practice. The WHO notes that "Obesity and weight loss great improvements with regular medical visits and availability" Many Americans don't have that the WHO says that nations should ensure that racial groups within it must have care tailored to their genetic needs (African Americans are for example more vulnerable to sickle cell, diabetes, cardiac issues etc.) but the US has very limited programs to deal with racial medical issues (unlike say France) etc. etc.
It's just a constant stream of excuses to justify the unjustifiable 4X per operation 2.5X spending total and the worst results in the first world. Even if all of these claims were completely valid (and most are not) it would not even come close to justifying the differences.
"Seems that they think they need around 5,000 sign-ups per month (through March) to pay for the program..."
But most of those signing up are low income types who can't pay and will get it free, making it even worse. The ones they need are young, healthy people who must be stupid enough to sign up for high priced insurance with high deductibles and high co-pays that they most likely will never use.
Not surprisingly, that is not happening, and Democrats are starting to panic.
I don't think the article referred to that. There is a 1.5% tax applied to the seller of all policies; this 1.5% is used to cover the overhead costs of personnel, computers, etc. It's that tax, paying for administration rather than health care, that was referred to with that 5,000 person signup.
What you say is true, and the money there is needed to maintain the ponzi scheme like plan, but was not what was being referenced.
"Australia, for example, provides universal healthcare to those under a certain income bracket and allows those who can afford insurance to use private healthcare. "
It's not that hard to look it up.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Fellows … ralia.aspx
"Not that it actually matters, but who should I believe?"
Well, you could believe the World Bank. That's who I linked in my original post. Or are you simply ignoring that?
Yes, American healthcare is pretty low-ranking compared to other countries:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi … st/267045/
ETA: I'm not here to support Obamacare. I don't know enough about it to form an opinion. What I do understand and have experience dealing with is universal healthcare. It works. The right can call it "communist" all they want, but that's not an argument. There are mounds of data supporting it as a superior system. Obamacare wasn't the answer, but the U.S. will probably never overhaul its healthcare system and ruin a massive cash cow for the insurance companies.
What health care system would you point to as the best example of universal health care being a success?
Positive, conclusive, declarative statement. All I asked for was your best example and rational to back that up, considering the big picture. You also misrepresented what I said:
"I was looking for which one you would choose to highlight, taking into consideration the overall health of the country itself...it's employment, it's economy, etc. You can't say a health care system is a glowing success if it is leaching the lifeblood from the country and strangling the healthy folks in the process. Which one is the glowing example you would point to, that we might look at the bigger picture when gauging it's true success?"
How about pretty much every industrialized country? I provided a link about it in my previous post, but if you look at the World Bank link from my first post, you can see the differences there. It's impossible to accurately define the "best" country in the world in terms of healthcare, but the fact that so many countries with universal healthcare outrank the U.S. is easy to establish.
Frankly, I think it's up to proponents of the U.S. healthcare system to prove that theirs is better.
I was looking for which one you would choose to highlight, taking into consideration the overall health of the country itself...it's employment, it's economy, etc. You can't say a health care system is a glowing success if it is leaching the lifeblood from the country and strangling the healthy folks in the process. Which one is the glowing example you would point to, that we might look at the bigger picture when gauging it's true success?
Again, you're asking me to pretty much write a dissertation and turn over every rock to prove something that you're obviously not going to consider anyway.
You say universal healthcare strangles healthy people. Prove it. You say it leeches the lifeblood from a country. Again, prove it. If you're trying to compare employment and economic power, then it doesn't take much to know that the U.S. is in terrible economic shape in both those areas.
I'm pretty happy here in Canada (although we're far from being the "glowing success" you unrealistically want me to cite). Our obesity rate is lower than the U.S. Our life expectancy and infant mortality rates are lower. Our unemployment rate is down to 6.9%, which is a significant difference from the depression. What exactly do you need to fulfill your stringent requirements for evidence?
How exactly can you claim that universal healthcare stifles the economy when the U.S. spends more per capita on healthcare than any other developed country? I'd say that's enough proof right there.
I repeat, the onus is on you - proponents of the U.S. healthcare system - to prove that your system is better and universal healthcare is a failure. Considering the data I've presented, you'll be hard-pressed to do so. Try and see if your next reply contains something even remotely as solid as I've shown
by Judy Specht4 months ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new...
by Education Answer2 years ago
If you were able to abolish Obamacare, what would you do to improve our current health care system?Democrats are keen to say that our system doesn’t work, that our life expectancy is short compared to other...
by Barefootfae2 years ago
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/27/s … s-to-rise/To all those who swore and I am certain will still swear ACA won't raise premiums:Kathleen Sebelius.
by Susie Lehto7 months ago
HEALTHCARE REFORM TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAINSince March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare. This legislation, passed by...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces...
by Holle Abee4 years ago
According to ABC, 67% of Americans polled want to kill the law completely or kill the individual mandate. Could the law work without the mandate? Any ideas?http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … l-mandate/
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.