I'm not stupid. And it's not a "belief". It's a fact. You have revealed that you are very uninformed!
Do you "believe" that every other developed OECD country spends much less on healthcare and gets the same or better results in many cases?
No, I'm saying that they didn't instantly install a perfect, finished system but they were working on it to solve problems, AND, the US has carried out a very long and very intense campaign to make sure socialism failed in Venezuela and you don't know about that and you don't seem to care enough to look into it objectively and not from a biased, propagandized viewpoint.
Then why is it that SpaceX can get routine payloads into space for 1/4 of the cost thatg NASA can? Looking for a source I found this. It's even worse. https://mic.com/articles/11354/spac...ilding-the-dragon-than-nasa-does-on-the-orion
There is no incentive for doctors not to prescribe any test that might be relevent to the patients condition. And changing medical liability laws will not impact that very simple fact.
If it weren't for Obamacare a good friend of mine would have died. Prior to ACA, she could not get insurance even though she could afford it due a pre-existing condition. ACA changed that and she was able to purchase medical insurance and thus get the treatment she needed before it became too late. With UHC, while it means higher taxes, you will get more for your money then utilizing the current system and most importantly, we will be saving lives.
UHC was defeated in California at the hands of a Democratic legislature in the most liberal state in the union. I suspect that the reason was that UHC is not free, and the liberal majority running California didn't want to pay for it. I suspect that upper income liberals were happy with the plans they have, many of which are provided by their employers. Keep in mind that politicians are followers, not leaders. They were following the mood of their constituents when they killed it. UHC - sometimes referred to as "free health care" - is popular until you find out that it costs anywhere between 20-25% of one's income. So if you want UHC, you must not look to the mystical, magical "someone else" to pay for it. You must look to yourself to pay for it. Californians apparently didn't have enough people who said, "Yes, I'll pay for it."
You will get more for your money but it means higher taxes?............That makes sense, not. What you really mean is that you want others to eat your increased costs so that you can get more for your money
That's really not true. You will pay more money in taxes, but if under the private system you end up in the hospital and rack up a bill, for example 100k, you are responsible for paying it, under UHC while you pay more in taxes, you will receive more in medical care then the extra taxes you pay.
Why is it that Medicare can deliver healthcare for about 20% of the administrative costs of private insurers?
It's certainly not a "fact". Tests are one driver for fee-for-service care. After the doctor orders the test, he has to evaluate the results and make recommendations to the patient in another appointment, plus often follow-up appointments for more services are needed. And as far as motivation, most doctors and his staff are doing what they do because they want to benefit people and their health. Your claim of "no incentive" suggests they only see it as a "job".
You're attacking the poster as your "argument". It shows you know your position is pathetically weak.
Let's think about that. California examined the feasibility of doing a statewide UHC system as did Vermont, and both backed away. Why?Think about the national implications. Even when a state implements such a UHC they are still faced with intricate details of employer plans for many nationwide employers. Working out those corporate commitments that extend far beyond their state borders is a huge challenge. They are still obligated to pay FICA taxes, significantly adding to the cost. There are still excessive prices on drugs and the power of that lobby to consider. There are considerations for out-of-state travelers who will need healthcare. It's not as simple as just dealing with the residents of the state.
And actually, you SAVE, because if we have UHC there will be savings from private insurance premiums and FICA will be factored into the cost, thus reducing the needed increase. Hey, bottom line: EVERY OTHER developed OECD country spends much less per capita for healthcare and they get equal or better outcomes. We in the US are the only ones still dealing with the high cost of private coverage.
Government health care is a gun pointed at the heads of the health care industry and will create a system of slavery, corruption, murder, theft, and fraud. In a free society, you are responsible for your health issues, cares, finances, and needs. It is not your neighbors problem, society's problem, God's problem, or the doctor's problem. Just yours. My suggestion is to keep your hands out of my pockets, and start behaving like a rational being, and take care and live your own life and quite being a parasite. Doctors are not the servants of their patients. No free man is a "servant" of those he deals with. Doctors are traders, like everyone else in a free society — and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer. "The pursuit of his own productive career is — and, morally, should be — the primary goal of a doctor's work, as it is the primary goal of any self-respecting, productive man. But there is no clash of interests among rational men in a free society, and there is no clash of interests between doctors and patients. In pursuing his own career, a doctor does have to do his best for the welfare of his patients. This relationship, however, cannot be reversed: one cannot sacrifice the doctor's interests, desires and freedom to whatever the patients (or their politicians) might deem to be their own "welfare." Many doctors know this, but are afraid to assert their rights, because they dare not challenge the morality of altruism, neither in the public's mind nor in their own. Others are collectivists at heart, who believe that socialized medicine is morally right and who feel guilty while opposing it. Still others are so cynically embittered that they believe that the whole country consists of fools or parasites eager to get something for nothing — that morality and justice are futile — that ideas are impotent — that the cause of freedom is doomed — and that the doctors' only chance lies in borrowing the enemy's arguments and gaining a brief span of borrowed time. This last is usually regarded as the "practical" attitude for "conservatives." But nobody is as naive as a cynic, and nothing is as impractical as the attempt to win by conceding the enemy's premises. How many defeats and disasters will collectivism's victims have to witness before they become convinced of it?"--Ayn Randhttps://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/health-care/ Me? I've see enough. I value my liberty. My life is mine to live, not the governments' to rob, God's to command, nor society's to rule. So, no thanks to hell on earth. Give me liberty, your way will only give me death. BTW: The debate began a long time ago. Its the judgment day that is arriving, and it doesn't look very good for liberty.
Well, you're just spreading fear and worn out propaganda. And most people by a large margin say you're wrong. Riiiiiight. Ayn Rand railed against Medicare and all "entitlements" in the same way you are, and when push came to shove in her later years, she took Medicare and Social Security eagerly. She was a hypocrite. That's who you're following and parroting.
Well you did take her money and deprive her from investing it herself for many years. She no doubt took a huge net loss courtesy of the government
Ironic that the parasites think the physician's services are so vital as to be a right, but don't want them to be compensated as if their services are actually vital to mankind. They need the extra cash to buy smokes and ipads
I "believe"--and it is really not a subject amenable to debate--that those other "developed" countries have much higher taxes than in the US. And you simply cannot have UHC without increasing taxes substantially...
