Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes
- Thread starter Martyn4802
- Start date
For those of you that are for more government intervention in health care look at it from this perspective. If you are a mechanic and own a shop, how are you going to feel when the government steps in and tells you that you can only charge 30 dollars/hour for repairs? It doesn't matter that you have a shop full of tools and equipment and pay employees this is all your worth. Doesn't matter if you have paid for training and certifications that is all you can charge. This is what the government is already doing in Medicare and Medicade. If we see these patients we are required by law to file their insurance and accept what the government allows. This I am sure will also be the case with the public option, it will be against the law to see these patients for cash or charge more than the government rate. I already don't see Medicaid patients and am almost at a breakeven point on Medicare so if the government gets any deeper in my pockets I will take my toys and go play somewhere else. I worked as a Mechanic and Plant Engineer before I became a Dr. I made more money in both these fields than I ever have in health care. I do what I do because I am good at it and love it. But it is very close to the point of the juice not being worth the squeeze anymore.
Yes we need changes in health care. There is nothing in what the government is doing that is going to limit costs. Until things are done to streamline the administrative issues and tort liability, health care is going to be expensive.
There does need to be regulation on pre-existing conditions and losing your insurance if you get sick or lose your job. As far as a government plan if they would pool people so individuals could get insurance, at least catastrophic coverage at reasonable costs that would be good.
I always hear that we have inferior health care coverage compared to Europe and Canada. Don't you believe it? If I have a serious illness or trauma I want to be right here.
Colorado Pete
New member
Ummm, HB71, if you want to know where the constitution limits the Congress, you might try the Bill of Rights. Including the 10th Amendment. You've probably heard of it. As its author Madison said, it is a goverment of specific and limited powers, said powers specified in the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't specifically say the fed gov't can do it, then the 10th amendment specifically says the fed gov't. CAN'T do it. Plain English buddy, no need to have a leftist judge 'decode' it, like they have 'decoded' the general welfare statement (NOT A CLAUSE!) to mean whatever they want.
Originally Posted By: javafour
Were do you get your "facts"?
How on earth can you claim our "access to health" care is worse than the socialist countries?
How's this for "access," average ER wait time in the US is 4 hours ( http://www.pressganey.com/galleries/ED_Pulse_2009_files/2009_ED_Pulse_Report.pdf ), whereas the Canadians have to wait one heckuva lot longer, commonly 20-25+ hours! ( http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/21/ot-er-waits-080521.html?ref=rss ).
Oh come on, we could sit here all day and compare specific heathcare horror stories from any country we want, and we would be no further ahead.
You picked an article about emergency care thats clearly misconstrued to make things out to be worse then it is. That 20 hours is the average wait time from seeing the doctor to being discharged or admitted to another section of the hospital, and is NOT the time someone is waiting for treatment in a life or death situation.
Go HERE and do some reading. There are actual facts presented with the sources referenced.
I'm still saying that you spend 2-3 times more then any other country (as a percentage of your GDP) and still manage to come in 37 according to WHO. I don't care which side of the political spectrum you fall on, thats an issue that needs to be addressed. And this bill, as it stands, does little to nothing to control costs.
Were do you get your "facts"?
How on earth can you claim our "access to health" care is worse than the socialist countries?
How's this for "access," average ER wait time in the US is 4 hours ( http://www.pressganey.com/galleries/ED_Pulse_2009_files/2009_ED_Pulse_Report.pdf ), whereas the Canadians have to wait one heckuva lot longer, commonly 20-25+ hours! ( http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/21/ot-er-waits-080521.html?ref=rss ).
Oh come on, we could sit here all day and compare specific heathcare horror stories from any country we want, and we would be no further ahead.
You picked an article about emergency care thats clearly misconstrued to make things out to be worse then it is. That 20 hours is the average wait time from seeing the doctor to being discharged or admitted to another section of the hospital, and is NOT the time someone is waiting for treatment in a life or death situation.
Go HERE and do some reading. There are actual facts presented with the sources referenced.
I'm still saying that you spend 2-3 times more then any other country (as a percentage of your GDP) and still manage to come in 37 according to WHO. I don't care which side of the political spectrum you fall on, thats an issue that needs to be addressed. And this bill, as it stands, does little to nothing to control costs.
Javafour
New member
Originally Posted By: CraigOriginally Posted By: javafour
Were do you get your "facts"?
How on earth can you claim our "access to health" care is worse than the socialist countries?
How's this for "access," average ER wait time in the US is 4 hours ( http://www.pressganey.com/galleries/ED_Pulse_2009_files/2009_ED_Pulse_Report.pdf ), whereas the Canadians have to wait one heckuva lot longer, commonly 20-25+ hours! ( http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/21/ot-er-waits-080521.html?ref=rss ).
Oh come on, we could sit here all day and compare specific heathcare horror stories from any country we want, and we would be no further ahead.
You picked an article about emergency care thats clearly misconstrued to make things out to be worse then it is. That 20 hours is the average wait time from seeing the doctor to being discharged or admitted to another section of the hospital, and is NOT the time someone is waiting for treatment in a life or death situation.
Go HERE and do some reading. There are actual facts presented with the sources referenced.
I'm still saying that you spend 2-3 times more then any other country (as a percentage of your GDP) and still manage to come in 37 according to WHO. I don't care which side of the political spectrum you fall on, that's an issue that needs to be addressed. And this bill, as it stands, does little to nothing to control costs.
You seemingly didn't really read my two SEPARATE sources, one was a Canadian article, yes, and one was a study--that is two separate sources that show pretty clearly what one should expect in Canada. The blog you cited is pretty lame, BTW.
For example, your socialist blogger buddy drags out the old US infant mortality rate as a 'proof' that socialized medicine is superior. Wrongo! Because of our SUPERIOR medical care here in the US, we have more kids even make it to birth--kids who would have died before or shortly after birth in these wonderful foreign countries. OF COURSE that will skew our stats, but all it shows is that here kids have a much better fighting chance.
WHO CARES what the WHO thinks about anything? Most of the world is a real mess and you couldn't pay me to live there. If you want to wait 20 hours in a Canadian ER or to have the dental care of the British then God bless ya, I like my relationships with my family's doctors and I don't want the government messing with that, thanks. You are welcome to go to Canada or Britain for your medical care but...oh, wait, they all seem to want to come HERE...gee, wonder why that is? Gosh, maybe because our health care here is BETTER and they can get it here when they need it, ie BEFORE they die!
Sure, lots we can do to lower health care costs and that all starts with getting the liberals out of the picture. Reform medical malpractice, allow multi-state insurance pooling, and other free market reforms. The last thing we need is MORE government meddling.
I have traveled abroad extensively and I would not want to copy ANYTHING here that I have seen overseas, thanks. THEY need to be more like us, not the other way around!
Were do you get your "facts"?
How on earth can you claim our "access to health" care is worse than the socialist countries?
How's this for "access," average ER wait time in the US is 4 hours ( http://www.pressganey.com/galleries/ED_Pulse_2009_files/2009_ED_Pulse_Report.pdf ), whereas the Canadians have to wait one heckuva lot longer, commonly 20-25+ hours! ( http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/21/ot-er-waits-080521.html?ref=rss ).
Oh come on, we could sit here all day and compare specific heathcare horror stories from any country we want, and we would be no further ahead.
You picked an article about emergency care thats clearly misconstrued to make things out to be worse then it is. That 20 hours is the average wait time from seeing the doctor to being discharged or admitted to another section of the hospital, and is NOT the time someone is waiting for treatment in a life or death situation.
Go HERE and do some reading. There are actual facts presented with the sources referenced.
I'm still saying that you spend 2-3 times more then any other country (as a percentage of your GDP) and still manage to come in 37 according to WHO. I don't care which side of the political spectrum you fall on, that's an issue that needs to be addressed. And this bill, as it stands, does little to nothing to control costs.
You seemingly didn't really read my two SEPARATE sources, one was a Canadian article, yes, and one was a study--that is two separate sources that show pretty clearly what one should expect in Canada. The blog you cited is pretty lame, BTW.
For example, your socialist blogger buddy drags out the old US infant mortality rate as a 'proof' that socialized medicine is superior. Wrongo! Because of our SUPERIOR medical care here in the US, we have more kids even make it to birth--kids who would have died before or shortly after birth in these wonderful foreign countries. OF COURSE that will skew our stats, but all it shows is that here kids have a much better fighting chance.
WHO CARES what the WHO thinks about anything? Most of the world is a real mess and you couldn't pay me to live there. If you want to wait 20 hours in a Canadian ER or to have the dental care of the British then God bless ya, I like my relationships with my family's doctors and I don't want the government messing with that, thanks. You are welcome to go to Canada or Britain for your medical care but...oh, wait, they all seem to want to come HERE...gee, wonder why that is? Gosh, maybe because our health care here is BETTER and they can get it here when they need it, ie BEFORE they die!
Sure, lots we can do to lower health care costs and that all starts with getting the liberals out of the picture. Reform medical malpractice, allow multi-state insurance pooling, and other free market reforms. The last thing we need is MORE government meddling.
I have traveled abroad extensively and I would not want to copy ANYTHING here that I have seen overseas, thanks. THEY need to be more like us, not the other way around!
jumprightinit
New member
Originally Posted By: javafour[
For example, your socialist blogger buddy drags out the old US infant mortality rate as a 'proof' that socialized medicine is superior. Wrongo! Because of our SUPERIOR medical care here in the US, we have more kids even make it to birth--kids who would have died before or shortly after birth in these wonderful foreign countries. OF COURSE that will skew our stats, but all it shows is that here kids have a much better fighting chance.
Here's a general overview for you. When you compare infant mortality statistics you need to look for the definitions. What, for instance, constitutes a live birth? In the United States any infant exhibiting any sign of life is considered to be alive. It doesn't matter how small, how premature or how much it weights. In countries like France, the Netherlands and Ireland they don't count the birth as a live birth unless the infant weighs more than 500 grams or the mother was ay least 22 months along in the pregnancy. Other countries won't count the birth as being a live birth unless the infant survives for specified period of time.
Statistics by themselves are meaningless and misleading. The statistics say we are NR. 47 in infant mortality, BS.
For example, your socialist blogger buddy drags out the old US infant mortality rate as a 'proof' that socialized medicine is superior. Wrongo! Because of our SUPERIOR medical care here in the US, we have more kids even make it to birth--kids who would have died before or shortly after birth in these wonderful foreign countries. OF COURSE that will skew our stats, but all it shows is that here kids have a much better fighting chance.
Here's a general overview for you. When you compare infant mortality statistics you need to look for the definitions. What, for instance, constitutes a live birth? In the United States any infant exhibiting any sign of life is considered to be alive. It doesn't matter how small, how premature or how much it weights. In countries like France, the Netherlands and Ireland they don't count the birth as a live birth unless the infant weighs more than 500 grams or the mother was ay least 22 months along in the pregnancy. Other countries won't count the birth as being a live birth unless the infant survives for specified period of time.
Statistics by themselves are meaningless and misleading. The statistics say we are NR. 47 in infant mortality, BS.
HunterBear71
New member
Pete, most people consider The Bill Of Rights to be an enumeration of rights and not a limitation on Congress power, unless you are referencing the ban on establishing religion. The tenth amendment specifically mentions powers already granted to congress. The general welfare provision precedes The Bill of Rights and thus the right to make laws for the general welfare is specifically assured. Most people looking to show the limitations placed on congress would mention section 9 of article I of the constitution which sets out the restrictions on the powers of congress. Those restrictions include bans on congressional approval of bills of attainder, ex post facto laws and measures suspending habeas corpus. Since the constitution includes specific language describing exactly what laws congress is forbidden from enacting, it would stand to reason that laws not enumerated would be at the lawful discretion of the legislature.
Colorado Pete
New member
Ummm, "most people" as you quote are only on the left. READ the Bill of Rights HB. "Congress shall pass no law"..."shall not be infringed"...etc. The bill of rights is a listing of congressional no-no's. The tenth amendment does mention powers granted to congress, in contrast to those that are withheld!
The general welfare provision is no provision at all, merely listing one of the reasons WHY the constitution was written, and because it is up front (it is in the introduction, DUH) doesn't mean it supersedes all else (DUH), nor does it specifically assure ANYTHING.
Also the bill of rights specifically states that the enumeration of certain rights does not deny or disparage others that are not enumerated.
HB your arguments are as childish as they are obtuse, and your obtuseness, typical of leftists, is in the service of rationalizing your own desires, and at odds with the truth. Grow up.
The general welfare provision is no provision at all, merely listing one of the reasons WHY the constitution was written, and because it is up front (it is in the introduction, DUH) doesn't mean it supersedes all else (DUH), nor does it specifically assure ANYTHING.
Also the bill of rights specifically states that the enumeration of certain rights does not deny or disparage others that are not enumerated.
HB your arguments are as childish as they are obtuse, and your obtuseness, typical of leftists, is in the service of rationalizing your own desires, and at odds with the truth. Grow up.
HunterBear71
New member
Pete, your interpretation of the constitution defies logic. The sections of the Bill of Rights that you quote do not substantiate your claims. "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion" has absolutely nothing to do with the right to pass healthcare. Also, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not deny congress the right to draft social legislation. In fact, your understanding of the constitution is far from credible if you believe the actual constitution is merely a preamble to the Bill of Rights. Only the first amendment of the bill of rights is a listing of congressional 'no-no's'. I don't understand why you insult me and call me childish when i have tried to accept your arguments as rational.
Bill B.
New member
HB71,
So you expect all of us to believe that Congress can pass any law, at any time because that is what the Constitution set them up to do? Is that really what you are saying?
If so, you have missed quite a bit on what the Constitution sets forth to achieve. I can see from all the posts above it's a waste of time to make any attempt to explain it so I will not even try.
Your line of thinking is the ruination of this country. Thinking that Congress can do anything they want has allowed America to get so far off track that I now pay more in taxes than a minimum wage earner makes just so people who don't want to work don't have to. When the back of the working man is finally broken where will the government get their money?
So you expect all of us to believe that Congress can pass any law, at any time because that is what the Constitution set them up to do? Is that really what you are saying?
If so, you have missed quite a bit on what the Constitution sets forth to achieve. I can see from all the posts above it's a waste of time to make any attempt to explain it so I will not even try.
Your line of thinking is the ruination of this country. Thinking that Congress can do anything they want has allowed America to get so far off track that I now pay more in taxes than a minimum wage earner makes just so people who don't want to work don't have to. When the back of the working man is finally broken where will the government get their money?
Originally Posted By: javafour
You seemingly didn't really read my two SEPARATE sources, one was a Canadian article, yes, and one was a study--that is two separate sources that show pretty clearly what one should expect in Canada. The blog you cited is pretty lame, BTW.
For example, your socialist blogger buddy drags out the old US infant mortality rate as a 'proof' that socialized medicine is superior. Wrongo! Because of our SUPERIOR medical care here in the US, we have more kids even make it to birth--kids who would have died before or shortly after birth in these wonderful foreign countries. OF COURSE that will skew our stats, but all it shows is that here kids have a much better fighting chance.
WHO CARES what the WHO thinks about anything? Most of the world is a real mess and you couldn't pay me to live there. If you want to wait 20 hours in a Canadian ER or to have the dental care of the British then God bless ya, I like my relationships with my family's doctors and I don't want the government messing with that, thanks. You are welcome to go to Canada or Britain for your medical care but...oh, wait, they all seem to want to come HERE...gee, wonder why that is? Gosh, maybe because our health care here is BETTER and they can get it here when they need it, ie BEFORE they die!
Sure, lots we can do to lower health care costs and that all starts with getting the liberals out of the picture. Reform medical malpractice, allow multi-state insurance pooling, and other free market reforms. The last thing we need is MORE government meddling.
I have traveled abroad extensively and I would not want to copy ANYTHING here that I have seen overseas, thanks. THEY need to be more like us, not the other way around!
I read the CBC article. The waiting time the cite isn't the time waiting to see a doctor, its the waiting time to either be discharged, or sent to another part of the hospital, it says so in the first paragraph. By their definition of a waiting time, if the doctor kept you overnight for observation, your "waiting" time has now become 24 hours It's a very sewed article to say the least.
As for the infant mortality rates. Ask your self, if other "socialized" country are doing better then you in a lot of other areas (life expectancy, most cancer survival rates, heart disease, and a long list of other things) why would you think that the infant mortality rate is scewed because of your better health care. True the US measures this differently then SOME (some not all) countries.
People come to the US because your health care system is great for people who have a lot of cash. It sucks for the poor, and for anyone who's insurance drops them, or they lose their job, or trying to start their own business, etc...
As for the reforms well.
Malpractice is somewhere between 1-200 billion, depending on who you talk to. Health care costs are about 2.2 trillion. Even if you were to remove malpractice entirely, which you can't do of course, it comes out a savings of less then 1/10 of 1%. Its like trimming your fingernails to lose weight.
I suppose its worth mentioning, but most of the payout in malpractice is for future medical costs. If you had a single payer system where the future medical costs for the victim is essentially zero, single payer has no become the ultimate tort reform.
As for competition across state lines read this. I guess you'll want to dismiss it because its from the evil socialist, but its written in plain english, and hard to find disagreement with the logic.
Go here
http://apps.who.int/whosis/data/Search.jsp?countries=[Location].Members
Copy and paste, linking it doesn't work well.
And take the time to compare the US against other industrialized countries (unclick the third world countries to save your self the mess) and then ask your self why your towards the bottom in nearly every health indicator they compiled. Yet you're still spending more then the "socialists." And its not because they have scewed towards making the American system out to look worse.
You seemingly didn't really read my two SEPARATE sources, one was a Canadian article, yes, and one was a study--that is two separate sources that show pretty clearly what one should expect in Canada. The blog you cited is pretty lame, BTW.
For example, your socialist blogger buddy drags out the old US infant mortality rate as a 'proof' that socialized medicine is superior. Wrongo! Because of our SUPERIOR medical care here in the US, we have more kids even make it to birth--kids who would have died before or shortly after birth in these wonderful foreign countries. OF COURSE that will skew our stats, but all it shows is that here kids have a much better fighting chance.
WHO CARES what the WHO thinks about anything? Most of the world is a real mess and you couldn't pay me to live there. If you want to wait 20 hours in a Canadian ER or to have the dental care of the British then God bless ya, I like my relationships with my family's doctors and I don't want the government messing with that, thanks. You are welcome to go to Canada or Britain for your medical care but...oh, wait, they all seem to want to come HERE...gee, wonder why that is? Gosh, maybe because our health care here is BETTER and they can get it here when they need it, ie BEFORE they die!
Sure, lots we can do to lower health care costs and that all starts with getting the liberals out of the picture. Reform medical malpractice, allow multi-state insurance pooling, and other free market reforms. The last thing we need is MORE government meddling.
I have traveled abroad extensively and I would not want to copy ANYTHING here that I have seen overseas, thanks. THEY need to be more like us, not the other way around!
I read the CBC article. The waiting time the cite isn't the time waiting to see a doctor, its the waiting time to either be discharged, or sent to another part of the hospital, it says so in the first paragraph. By their definition of a waiting time, if the doctor kept you overnight for observation, your "waiting" time has now become 24 hours It's a very sewed article to say the least.
As for the infant mortality rates. Ask your self, if other "socialized" country are doing better then you in a lot of other areas (life expectancy, most cancer survival rates, heart disease, and a long list of other things) why would you think that the infant mortality rate is scewed because of your better health care. True the US measures this differently then SOME (some not all) countries.
People come to the US because your health care system is great for people who have a lot of cash. It sucks for the poor, and for anyone who's insurance drops them, or they lose their job, or trying to start their own business, etc...
As for the reforms well.
Malpractice is somewhere between 1-200 billion, depending on who you talk to. Health care costs are about 2.2 trillion. Even if you were to remove malpractice entirely, which you can't do of course, it comes out a savings of less then 1/10 of 1%. Its like trimming your fingernails to lose weight.
I suppose its worth mentioning, but most of the payout in malpractice is for future medical costs. If you had a single payer system where the future medical costs for the victim is essentially zero, single payer has no become the ultimate tort reform.
As for competition across state lines read this. I guess you'll want to dismiss it because its from the evil socialist, but its written in plain english, and hard to find disagreement with the logic.
Go here
http://apps.who.int/whosis/data/Search.jsp?countries=[Location].Members
Copy and paste, linking it doesn't work well.
And take the time to compare the US against other industrialized countries (unclick the third world countries to save your self the mess) and then ask your self why your towards the bottom in nearly every health indicator they compiled. Yet you're still spending more then the "socialists." And its not because they have scewed towards making the American system out to look worse.
Last edited:
ill keep my health care, even though i got about 5000 in med bills for haveing shoulder surgery. i dont want some bueracrat telling me im too fat, too old, to risky, or some other excuse so they wont treat me. if i need to be fixed i will be and dont have to worry about the goverenment telling me yes or no, i have the freedom to choose.
the dems want me to have the freedom to chosse life or death on an unborn child. why not with my own health.
leave me alone!!
the dems want me to have the freedom to chosse life or death on an unborn child. why not with my own health.
leave me alone!!
Originally Posted By: blutoill keep my health care, even though i got about 5000 in med bills for haveing shoulder surgery. i dont want some bueracrat telling me im too fat, too old, to risky, or some other excuse so they wont treat me.
What about some insurance company telling you they can't insure you because your too fat, old, a smoker, or any number of things out of a long list. Insurance companies make the same decisions day in and day out, with their own profit being the deciding factor.
Its a case of picking your poison. Insurance companies make the same decisions your talking about to. About your healthcare, and with their own profit being the motivating factor.
What about some insurance company telling you they can't insure you because your too fat, old, a smoker, or any number of things out of a long list. Insurance companies make the same decisions day in and day out, with their own profit being the deciding factor.
Its a case of picking your poison. Insurance companies make the same decisions your talking about to. About your healthcare, and with their own profit being the motivating factor.
redeyeddawg
New member
Once the insurance companies go under, we won't be able to "pick our poison", there will be only government poison to swallow. If you think rationing won't come under the government plan then you've been smoking something that's still illegal on our side of the border. Government put our system into this condition. More government won't fix it. It's like giving a drowning man a glass of water. Insane.
the insuarance company didnt try to tell me i couldnt have surgery they just wouldnt pay some of it.
but i still had the surgery with out problems. no one told me, no you cant have surgery.
the insurace companys insane proffits are only 2.2% which is nothing as stated in a prevoius post
but i still had the surgery with out problems. no one told me, no you cant have surgery.
the insurace companys insane proffits are only 2.2% which is nothing as stated in a prevoius post
HunterBear71
New member
The private insurance companies don't have to fail just because there is a public option. In fact, if private insurance offers such value, no one will choose the public option. We have managed care right now. It is managed by private companies whose primary concern is not your health.
Originally Posted By: redeyeddawgOnce the insurance companies go under, we won't be able to "pick our poison", there will be only government poison to swallow. If you think rationing won't come under the government plan then you've been smoking something that's still illegal on our side of the border. Government put our system into this condition. More government won't fix it. It's like giving a drowning man a glass of water. Insane.
You don't think that rationing is occurring right now with the private insurance companies? Either in terms of what they will or will not cover, or in terms of what they are charging you even after you develop a problem? It happens each and every single day on your side of the border.
Ask your insurance provider what your premium cap is? Aside from some of the Cadillac plans they all have one, can you argue that isn't rationing?
France, Canada, Germany and a whole hosts of other countries have private insurance companies who have managed to stay in business despite their healthcare plans.
You don't think that rationing is occurring right now with the private insurance companies? Either in terms of what they will or will not cover, or in terms of what they are charging you even after you develop a problem? It happens each and every single day on your side of the border.
Ask your insurance provider what your premium cap is? Aside from some of the Cadillac plans they all have one, can you argue that isn't rationing?
France, Canada, Germany and a whole hosts of other countries have private insurance companies who have managed to stay in business despite their healthcare plans.
Last edited:
redeyeddawg
New member
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71The private insurance companies don't have to fail just because there is a public option. In fact, if private insurance offers such value, no one will choose the public option. We have managed care right now. It is managed by private companies whose primary concern is not your health.
But it's better to turn the whole thing over to unelected bureaucrats whose primary concern is controlling the masses, right? Government does not have to turn a profit. It can operate on perpetual losses as long as the printing presses are humming. It has no incentive for innovation, nor shareholders to answer to and will eventually squeeze out private insurance. Many credible studies have been done showing millions being forced out of private insurance and onto the taxpayer funded teat in just a few years if this 20 pound crap sandwich becomes law. One reason our costs are higher is because of the R&D that goes into medical advancments in the private sector, that other countries benefit from. Take away that private sector and the standard of care goes down even further, to go along with the rationing that occurs under a socialized system. We have roughly 15 million people in this country that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid or S CHIP and too little to purchase a private policy. Spending 1.5 TRILLION to ensure them works out to $100,000 per person. What a bargain!
But it's better to turn the whole thing over to unelected bureaucrats whose primary concern is controlling the masses, right? Government does not have to turn a profit. It can operate on perpetual losses as long as the printing presses are humming. It has no incentive for innovation, nor shareholders to answer to and will eventually squeeze out private insurance. Many credible studies have been done showing millions being forced out of private insurance and onto the taxpayer funded teat in just a few years if this 20 pound crap sandwich becomes law. One reason our costs are higher is because of the R&D that goes into medical advancments in the private sector, that other countries benefit from. Take away that private sector and the standard of care goes down even further, to go along with the rationing that occurs under a socialized system. We have roughly 15 million people in this country that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid or S CHIP and too little to purchase a private policy. Spending 1.5 TRILLION to ensure them works out to $100,000 per person. What a bargain!