The U.S healthcare fiasco

I have been listening to Rush since 1987. He has always claimed that the people that say the worst things about him are the ones that have never listened to him. Have you ever listened to him? I listen to Rachel Maddow, Obama, Holder, and other Libs so I know something about them and can make balanced judgements. How much time have you spent listening to Rush LimBAUGH?

You should work on your vocabulary, it isn't doing you any favors.

 

NONE of the issues that I believe in need lies to back them up. Some causes are not meant to be partisan; they are being exploited to support an agenda.

 

The WHO rankings have been discussed many times. The WHO no longer ranks nations, the last ranking was in 2000 - very outdated. They do continue to put out a World Health Report.

It has been and is exceptionally biased. For example, in the 2013 report, the emphasis is on universal coverage - as in government run single payer health care system. Obviously the USA will fall far short of those UN metrics. Such items as universal coverage and following UN health care guidelines and private costs of health care (as opposed to government paid costs) outweigh the actual result of health care.

 

I have and he turns my stomach. If you get your "information " from the likes of THAT creep it's no wonder you think what you do

 

Oh! I cannot wait for this one!!

What "agenda" does WHO have in it's rankings???

And it depends on your definition of "rationing" as to what you mean

 

This statement was pure speculation under the guise of fact. . . . A trusted source??? . . . . Of illogical partisan propaganda, maybe.

Vocabulary is not associated with spelling. The PURPOSEFUL name misspelling was an allusion to Rush's ED assumed to be caused by years of drug abuse.

You've got to give him credit, though. $500 million dollars net worth is not bad for a DJ.

 

Since we are mandated to buy coverage, it makes more sense to go to a single payer system where profit is eliminated. The government is certainly in a position to make this happen since all they have to do is to eliminate the self-insured pool and eliminate the 48 million that are fully covered by private insurance. By placing the entire population under a single payer system and fixing the structure of how healthcare is delivered, we could have a affordable system.

The reason why the government will not do this is it will reduce political donation funding and hurt Wall Street investors.

 

everyone knows that single player is the most cost effective, the countries with the best healthcare systems have some sort socializes ascent to ti - single payer or nationalized. The US is the only developed nation with a private healthcare system and it ranks very low on world stage (#37 according to WHO). The issue is what you mention, special interests who seek to profit from the current system have politicians in their pockets. The other problem is that there are many politicians who will simply not accept any system where government runs insurance or medicine, especially when it means more taxes. It doesn't matter that it will be more cost effective and actually save people money (yes more taxes but no premiums, out of pocket expenses which means savings), these politicians are anarchists.

 

Nothing new, nothing American. Demonization tactics in politics do indeed form a sharp point in politics. This is used everywhere, specifically to prod votes from righteous people... People who value the moral position of their beliefs ahead of their logic.

 

But it's so sweet and high-class of you to point it out in such a respectful manner.

Are you saying that making 300 million by selling potential access to the White House is a more laudable way to make money?

 

They have tried unsuccessfully for two years to PROVE that, but the paper trail just does not exist. . . . They are still trying to prove, 8 years later, that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen.

Unsubstantiated and distorted propaganda are flagrant abuses of First Amendment rights.

 

Here we have a perfect example of the process of turning off common sense when it gets in the way of clear thinking.

 

Are you implying that looking out for self-interests is more logical than standing up for moral convictions??? . . . . Is conscience a handicap???

 

When our government set up Medicare - our national health system - it also set up Medibank which is a government owned health insurer - it is for profit (gasp say the right I did not know you could DO that!) that was specifically set up to be a competitor in a market that was threatening to become an oligopoly

 

Here is an example: Whereas politicians will not make legislation that threatens the status-quo visa vis abortion/rowe v. wade, this is used to attract those with deep convictions on the matter. I think that practicality is more logical than moral conviction. I argue that this last presidential election cycle underscored this appeal to morality with it being the basis of both candidates attacks.

To answer your question directly, moral appeals present a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy ...conscience that overrides sensibility can be a handicap. To soften this assessment, some handicaps are admirable, taking advantage of them for political gain - my original point - that's not admirable in my view.

 

Certainly; common sense is unquestionable belief independent of proof or logic. . . . RIGHT??? We mustn't let relevant facts obscure our clear thinking.

Speaking of obscure, do you realize how illogical your statement is?

Anyway, GET BACK ON TOPIC.

 

Logical fallacies are ALWAYS based on false premises; otherwise the term would be a baseless oxymoron. Although exploitation of morality may be devious, political gain and favorable outcomes are not always incongruous. Those possessing true wisdom can identify the superficial aspects of moral arguments.

Obviously, you are trying to break down the moral arguments given in defense of the ACA. . . . Good luck refuting them with your rationalized logic.

 

I want you to answer me this simple question do you ever seen health insurance adds run on TV I'm not talking about supplemental insurance but regular health insurance you would think you would you cant watch 30 min of TV with out seeing a car insurance add
how about Hospitals how many of those adds do you see? and do they ever talk about price for their services at those hospitals in those adds?
can you answer me why?

 

Do you advocate universal coverage paid for by taxes, or individual contributions with no mandate?

 

Yes you are right the single payer system is by far the best. If you or you’re loved ones ever need a serious and life saving operation, you have enough worries without them being added to by thinking of the cost. That’s what a single payer system gives you for life. Those who denounce it from a political bias are more than stupid I can assure you that the last thing you will be thinking of if an ambulance is rushing you or you’re loved ones to hospital, the last thing on you’re mind will be politics, left or right.

 

i view this as irrelevant but waiting for you to tell me why what you posted matters at all.

 

it is irreverent to you because you have not a clue about the free market
Why you see commercials for car insurance and not health insurance because unlike health insurance there is competition in the car insurance market which drives down cost and that is why they advertise
There is no competition with health insurance some states only allow a few companies to operate in their states there for no competition higher cost you force them to compete it will drive down cost
but like I have already mentioned you haven't a clue on free markets so that is irrelevant to you

 

i knew this is where you were headed but wanted to make sure. Realize that now you have just showed me that you don't quite understand the health insurance industry.

Is there a federal law getting in the way of insurance across state lines? there isn't. So why doesn't it happen? If you truly understood the industry, there are barriers to entry that have nothing to do with government regulations. For an insurance company in Utah to sell insurance in NY, it's an entirely different network of doctors, hospitals to set up contracts with. It's also an entirely different demographics to deal with, which warrants different price setting. Insurance companies also have to deal with different state regulations but varying state regulations is not the main reason insurance companies don't sell across state lines though and neither is any federal regulation. Tell me i'm wrong...

 

I know what it cost before the ACA where I work - overall less than half of what it costs today. And we have the exact same plan we had in 2009. Premiums for the youngest went up the most, in 2009 a single male in his early 20's paid <$100, today that same person pays $650 a month (exact same plan).

obamacare is a complete failure.

 

No those are state laws and regulations that cause that but the federal government has the constructional right to change that under the commerce clause

and don't say it can be done because car insurance deals with the same problem of each state having different insurance requirements and they manage to do so