this debate is interesting...on one side we have the "we can't afford it and the gov't sucks at everything and it cost too much and we can't do it and I have no real alternative other than say the gov't sucks and we can't afford it but the gov't does some things right like roads, police, fire and military but they can't do healthcare because they suck and if the gov't does provide a public option the poor insurance companies won't be able to complete and we'll have sucky UHC and we'll all die"
vs.
"well, it's about time we take profits out of healthcare and if other counties can do it, why the hell can't the good ol' US of A?"
Allow me to clarify the "government sucks" point of view for you. It is still possible to be in that camp and still believe that government is capable of providing services to the people-- it just works far better the more 'local' it becomes. Let the states figure things out more than the federal government. It's their RIGHT to do so, actually. This explains why, for the most part that poice, fire, sometimes roads work out OK. There is more control by the people at this level. The more layers of government you add on top of what we have already, the more complicated things become, and ultimately taxpayer money just gets thrown at the problem. It's about efficiency and putting the people funding these programs in control more.
hey, vinnie, quick question...do you work for the gov't...? just curious...personally, I have worked for both private companies and worked for a gov't agency...
actually, both of those answers are acceptable and intelligent, just seemingly not to you. just b/c we are bigger thn other countries does not mean we cannot follow or learn from their model to see how they fund it and afford it. you seem to be the only one who doesn't see that. we're bigger = bigger taxbase = more $$$ to fund UHC.
its not an intelligent answer. and intelligent answer would provide specific examples of other governments programs and how we can apply it here. whenever you're ready...
what a restrained answer.
given your views on government, especially the fed govt...i thought for sure this question would be greeted by a hearty at least at first.
getting back to the heart of the thread topic.....i have to say, absolutely, these salaries/stock options/whatever....most definitely are a part of the problem. our healthcare should not be a means of getting rich. healthcare should be just about that.....health....care......not a for profit business. this is not to say that those who make our healthcare possible...doctors...nurses.....scientists...researchers...shouldn't get well paid, they absolutely should! but it is entirely unnecessary to have fat cats earning millions for overseeing a corporation built to be a money-making machine. healthcare shouldn't be a 'business' imo.
jlew....again...others have. i don't see you rehashing your rationale over and over, yet you expect everyone else to, just for you. you want to lecture on what's intelligent and what's debate...more power to ya. your condescension knows no bounds.... and i am far too lazy to do that in any case - i never provide links, and i never even used other governments in my arguements. as i said tho, i am not going to rehash my points for you. we've already covered em, in detail, elsewhere...and you dismissed em, so why would i bother? i just dislike you telling others what is intelligent and acceptible, or not. i didn't realize you got to set the game rules.
anytime, my friend...and nothing else to add on my end...thanks for asking...
theres a shocker.
tell me this...why do you think we can afford UHC? how do we pay for it?
fyi, "other countries do it" isn't an acceptable or intelligent answer.
didn't we cover this?
we all pay for heathcare now...
my insurance premium covers many things...
1. commission for the broker that sold me the insurance
2. profit to the insurance company
3. admin for numerous billing clerks that are involved in every transaction involving my medical care
4. my doctor
In France they have virtually no admin costs....no billing clerks, no insurance company profits/CEO Salaries, etc....you walk into a clinic and the only people in there are medical staff...no clerks
there is tremendous SAVINGS in UHC....not sure why you don't see that
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
anytime, my friend...and nothing else to add on my end...thanks for asking...
theres a shocker.
tell me this...why do you think we can afford UHC? how do we pay for it?
fyi, "other countries do it" isn't an acceptable or intelligent answer.
didn't we cover this?
we all pay for heathcare now...
my insurance premium covers many things...
1. commission for the broker that sold me the insurance
2. profit to the insurance company
3. admin for numerous billing clerks that are involved in every transaction involving my medical care
4. my doctor
In France they have virtually no admin costs....no billing clerks, no insurance company profits/CEO Salaries, etc....you walk into a clinic and the only people in there are medical staff...no clerks
there is tremendous SAVINGS in UHC....not sure why you don't see that
why can't we make such savings without going to a 100% government control system? how about some regulation in the insurance industry? what do you think about that?
edit: and I do see there are savings in UHC. that doesnt mean we can afford it. we are still talking about tax payer costs into the trillions.
you thanked me for the recap and asked I had anything else, thus my response...now this...note to jlew, urine and corn flakes don't mix well....
I asked you a direct question. this place is for debate is it not? are you only interested in cute one liners or actual debate?
let me know
in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing lots of words...not cute one liners here...and thanks for the compliment...when I do toss out the one liners, I think they are kinda cute, too...you're sweet to notice...
ok...thanks for the answer...as I said, I've worked for both, and both have there issues...while gov't may get a bad wrap...the issues you mention are similar in private industry...
I do wonder, if you've not worked for the gov't, where do you get you ideas as to how it runs...?
in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing lots of words...not cute one liners here...and thanks for the compliment...when I do toss out the one liners, I think they are kinda cute, too...you're sweet to notice...
in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing lots of words...not cute one liners here...and thanks for the compliment...when I do toss out the one liners, I think they are kinda cute, too...you're sweet to notice...
anytime, my friend...and nothing else to add on my end...thanks for asking...
theres a shocker.
tell me this...why do you think we can afford UHC? how do we pay for it?
fyi, "other countries do it" isn't an acceptable or intelligent answer.
didn't we cover this?
we all pay for heathcare now...
my insurance premium covers many things...
1. commission for the broker that sold me the insurance
2. profit to the insurance company
3. admin for numerous billing clerks that are involved in every transaction involving my medical care
4. my doctor
In France they have virtually no admin costs....no billing clerks, no insurance company profits/CEO Salaries, etc....you walk into a clinic and the only people in there are medical staff...no clerks
there is tremendous SAVINGS in UHC....not sure why you don't see that
thank you......and yes, many, many times....
exactly.
*that ALONE would probably save billions...maybe more. couple that with our new tax contributions (individuals + private companies) in lieu of payments to an insurance carrier = funding for UHC. i think we can afford it, i do believe it's doable, just thinking of these 2 issues alone....more than possible.
it's getting RID of the 'for profit' nature of healthcare, and all these for profit organizations based around it tht is the REAL problem, tho it shouldn't be....
If we go UHC and I no longer pay $1,000 month for health insurance but my taxes go up $1,000 month I'm still good right?????
come on man
what are you quoting?
you keep bringing up cost like there is no cost now....we pay for it now....if UHC comes around we won't have insurance to pay....see? we will have higher taxes but without having to support the insurance companies we eliminate the middle man see?
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
thank you......and yes, many, many times....
exactly.
fantastic! problem solved! just because there are savings, doesnt mean UHC becomes anymore affordable.
actually, that is EXACTLY what it means........
and we're not talking clipping coupons here...we're talking BILLIONS, perhaps more.....in savings...
you don't see it, idk what else to tell ya.
you keep bringing up cost like there is no cost now....we pay for it now....if UHC comes around we won't have insurance to pay....see? we will have higher taxes but without having to support the insurance companies we eliminate the middle man see?
not only that...b/c it's not just a 'middleman' it's a HUGE money-making profit machine. get rid of that profit, and costs go down, significantly.....seriously significantly. all medical staff/scientists/researchers still well paid, but there will be NO CEO getting a few million each year, etc. incredible savings. healthcare for healthcae...not for profit.
btw - and this is where the 'argument' comes in that w/p profit there is no innovation or quality of care.....which is BS, honestly. there IS quality of care in many health programs....medicare has a higher rathe of patient satisfaction over private insurance (as per the interview with the healthcare insider)....government funding already exists for numerous medical research, innovation intact.
after that, it comes down to just not wanting the government having control. fair enough i guess....but should just say that. i honestly don't know why tho. i seriously cannot imagine the government ham-handling our healthcre any worse than these private companies. this idea of having 'choice' really is a myth imo. the only 'choice' is to choose not to have healthcare, not a wise option imo, and in all honesty...it's in ALl our OWN best interests, in the long-term of costs, for EVERYone to have and utilize healthcare, especially preventative healthcare. beyond that, my 'choice' of healthcare...is entirely dictated by my employer. not much choice there. and w/o emplyer sponsored healthcare...many are simply SOL. great choices....
in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing lots of words...not cute one liners here...and thanks for the compliment...when I do toss out the one liners, I think they are kinda cute, too...you're sweet to notice...
go read it. or dont bother. you've proven you aren't capable of intelligent debate.
I told you, urine and corn flakes don't mix...but then again you never bother to listen to anyone other than yourself...as others have said, your question have been answered...however, since you can't comprehend those answers, you assume they were not answered...apparently that's super "intelligent" thing to do...
and you're a confusing fella. first you compliment me then you try to hurt my feelings by saying I'm immature, lame, and that I'm not intelligent...I suppose personal attacks are part of "intelligent debate"...of which you seem to so desperately want...yet you offer none...
well, you can always cling to the "we can't afford it but I offer nothing other than we can't afford it" argument...that seems to working just fine...
you keep bringing up cost like there is no cost now....we pay for it now....if UHC comes around we won't have insurance to pay....see? we will have higher taxes but without having to support the insurance companies we eliminate the middle man see?
its not that simple. I currently pay about $80 for my premium and my company pays about $250/300 or so. take that away, how much will my taxes go up? what business taxes go up as well?
and what about the people who maintain a healthy lifestyle and get an insurance plan that covers their needs. for example, a insurance rate of like $20 a month that yields a really high deducible. now, you want to raise their taxes to what?
and what about those who during tough times will temporarily cancel their insurance to save money and live a healthy lifestyle. I did that for a few years while I was out of college. but you want to take away that option for me.
and what happens when there are cost overruns. has the government ever been on budget with a program? no. but somehow they will start now? assuming they dont, how do you pay for it? raise taxes, print money, borrow?
in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing lots of words...not cute one liners here...and thanks for the compliment...when I do toss out the one liners, I think they are kinda cute, too...you're sweet to notice...
go read it. or dont bother. you've proven you aren't capable of intelligent debate.
I told you, urine and corn flakes don't mix...but then again you never bother to listen to anyone other than yourself...as others have said, your question have been answered...however, since you can't comprehend those answers, you assume they were not answered...apparently that's super "intelligent" thing to do...
and you're a confusing fella. first you compliment me then you try to hurt my feelings by saying I'm immature, lame, and that I'm not intelligent...I suppose personal attacks are part of "intelligent debate"...of which you seem to so desperately want...yet you offer none...
well, you can always cling to the "we can't afford it but I offer nothing other than we can't afford it" argument...that seems to working just fine...
I asked you a direct question about cost of UHC. you offered nothing but insults and immature one liners. come back when you are ready to act like an adult.
thank you......and yes, many, many times....
exactly.
fantastic! problem solved! just because there are savings, doesnt mean UHC becomes anymore affordable.
actually, that is EXACTLY what it means........
and we're not talking clipping coupons here...we're talking BILLIONS, perhaps more.....in savings...
you don't see it, idk what else to tell ya.
using all caps doesnt mean its true. even with cost savings, all estimates point to the cost of UHC in the trillions. I can all cap it for ya if you want.
this outlines many cost options and its a case FOR it.
I told you, urine and corn flakes don't mix...but then again you never bother to listen to anyone other than yourself...as others have said, your question have been answered...however, since you can't comprehend those answers, you assume they were not answered...apparently that's super "intelligent" thing to do...
more insults. I can comprehend answers. show me where they are? and besides, I asked you a direct question.
and you're a confusing fella. first you compliment me then you try to hurt my feelings by saying I'm immature, lame, and that I'm not intelligent...I suppose personal attacks are part of "intelligent debate"...of which you seem to so desperately want...yet you offer none...
they aren't personal attacks on you. they are observations. your answer to my direct question about cost of UHC was something about piss and corn flakes. thats lame and immature is it not?
well, you can always cling to the "we can't afford it but I offer nothing other than we can't afford it" argument...that seems to working just fine...
I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.
I asked you a direct question about cost of UHC. you offered nothing but insults and immature one liners. come back when you are ready to act like an adult.
of all people...which here means: of all people on this board to have the balls to tell someone else to act like an adult, yet that same person resorts to personal attacks when they have nothing else to offer...as for you cost question, it's been answered...and why would I bother to take the time to rehash it when you already have your mind made up...
you make like someone is proposing a bad thing...I wonder what your stance would have been back in the day when roads and infrastructure were being built..."paved roads?!?!, we can't afford it!!!, bridges?!?!...we don't need no stinking bridges, people can swim, screw 'em if they can't"....
you keep bringing up cost like there is no cost now....we pay for it now....if UHC comes around we won't have insurance to pay....see? we will have higher taxes but without having to support the insurance companies we eliminate the middle man see?
its not that simple. I currently pay about $80 for my premium and my company pays about $250/300 or so. take that away, how much will my taxes go up? what business taxes go up as well?
and what about the people who maintain a healthy lifestyle and get an insurance plan that covers their needs. for example, a insurance rate of like $20 a month that yields a really high deducible. now, you want to raise their taxes to what?
and what about those who during tough times will temporarily cancel their insurance to save money and live a healthy lifestyle. I did that for a few years while I was out of college. but you want to take away that option for me.
and what happens when there are cost overruns. has the government ever been on budget with a program? no. but somehow they will start now? assuming they dont, how do you pay for it? raise taxes, print money, borrow?
yes, everyone's taxes will go up to cover the costs. how much - how can we know for sure?
lucky you with your costs....many of us aren't so lucky. i pay in way more than that, and our prices just went up again. perhaps with taxes, some will go up some, some others down, 'even out' the costs a bit....idk.
as to the person and the healthy lifestyle...hate to break it to ya, healthy people get cancer too ya know. so sure, while you can choose to play that roulette, long-term, it's unwise....so yes...yet again, you are correct...you'd have to pay in for healthcare whether you want to or not. kinda like i pay a lot of money for education even tho idon't have children. to me, both are a big part of civilized society....education and healthcare for all.
so it DOES all come down to you wanting to keep your 'choice' of having coverage or not having coverage, etc....not having the government force you to pay towards your healthcare or of others, etc. and hey, you're absolutely right....we ARE discussing taking away that choice from you or anyone. many of us are a-ok with it. you are not. we shall see what the majority really wants and what gets implmented. it's all we can do, let our representatives know our desires, and voice them.
in the long-term, many of us do see how, collectively...it IS in our OWN best interest...as individuals and as a collective community, to have ALL our citizens have access to healthcare. study after study proves just how cost-effective preventative healthcare is, how it improves longevity by preventing and/or catching diseases early....all of these things will improve quality of life, lifespan, and yes....keep our collective healthcare costs down. why is it do you think that we, with our private insurance, have some of THE highest healthcare costs, per person, than elsehwere? and it certainly isn't our 'quality of care'...it's our profit margins...and yea, our prohibitve costs linked to those profits ANd to the costs of not everyone having preventative medicine, getting sick, not getting the early/cheaper preventions or treatments...and it getting out of hand. and even amongst those who DO take care of their health, they too benefit...b/c they too can get sick out of no where.....and they would be more apt to go for regular check-ups, hopefully catching some of these diseases early...if they know they always have coverage. i know quite a few healthy-lifestyle folks, struck with cancer, for example. so yea....we ARE talking about taking away your choice to say no to healthcare, b/c some of us believe it's for the best for us all to have healthcare......
jlew......obviously there are costs....and surely in the trillions. however, that still doesn't mean we can't afford it. there will be savings, there will be costs...no one, including myself, has said otherwise.
I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.
somehow i missed this specific data too. however, i have heard this argument before. yep, we're trillions in debt and yes we would have to raise taxes. agreed. however, this does not mean we cannot afford it. it's been explained a few times, just how we could possibly afford it. you simply don't believe it. we don't need to borrow more $$$ or print more $$4 to make it happen...but you bet....taxes will be raised. however, i am a-ok with paying my $$$ towards a heathcare tax and healthcare for all, for life, rather than what we have now.....lots of my healthcare $$$ NOT going to healthcare, but to profits.
the US currently spends the most on health care with the least results ... it is my opinion that this entire debate can be summarized as follows:
Is UHC affordable? Absolutely - in fact, with nominal increases to taxation even. The problem in the US is that the majority of that spending is going to pay for things that don't really have to deal with health care. When you factor in the profits insurance, pharmaceuticals, treatment clinics, etc. want to make and the management bonuses - it's extremely inefficient. I think a good example is this. The nike shoe. You aren't paying $150 because it costs that much to make the shoe - you are paying that much so phil knight can make a boat load of money and so you can pay tiger woods to wear the logo. UHC is in the same boat - you're spending all that money to make sure all these businesses make lots of money.
The problem is how do you break down this system that ultimately runs this country. The US is at war in Iraq simply so companies who control the gov't can make lots of money; the only reason bovine growth hormone gets FDA approval in US and not in any other western country is for the same reason, corporations control the gov't so they can profit. Healthcare is no different.
fantastic! problem solved! just because there are savings, doesnt mean UHC becomes anymore affordable.
actually, that is EXACTLY what it means........
and we're not talking clipping coupons here...we're talking BILLIONS, perhaps more.....in savings...
you don't see it, idk what else to tell ya.
using all caps doesnt mean its true. even with cost savings, all estimates point to the cost of UHC in the trillions. I can all cap it for ya if you want.
this outlines many cost options and its a case FOR it.
did you actually REREAD...yep, caps again.....your statement:
just because there are savings, doesnt mean UHC becomes anymore affordable
seriously?
do you not see it?
if i save an extra $100 a month on my utility bill.....my utilities, therefore my home, becomes more affordable to me. i now have that extra $100 to put towards future utilities, my home, my savings, whatever. same thing with healthcare. if we cut out the FOR PROFIT nature of healthcare...savings of probably billions or more, i now have more $$$ to put towards....healthcare! the $$$ is still there, it's just not going to stockholders...it's going toward healthcare!
you keep saying UHC would cost billions....what do you think healthcare costs NOW? you think it is cheaper now? it might be for you....but it's not for the nation. so if we can payu it in to insurance..we can pay it into taxes....and without that profit margin, hopefully our costs would be less, not more. i just don't see how you don't see this. you don't LIKE it or don't want it...i get it....but how you think we 'can't afford' it....we already do, somehow....
the US currently spends the most on health care with the least results ... it is my opinion that this entire debate can be summarized as follows:
Is UHC affordable? Absolutely - in fact, with nominal increases to taxation even. The problem in the US is that the majority of that spending is going to pay for things that don't really have to deal with health care. When you factor in the profits insurance, pharmaceuticals, treatment clinics, etc. want to make and the management bonuses - it's extremely inefficient. I think a good example is this. The nike shoe. You aren't paying $150 because it costs that much to make the shoe - you are paying that much so phil knight can make a boat load of money and so you can pay tiger woods to wear the logo. UHC is in the same boat - you're spending all that money to make sure all these businesses make lots of money.
The problem is how do you break down this system that ultimately runs this country. The US is at war in Iraq simply so companies who control the gov't can make lots of money; the only reason bovine growth hormone gets FDA approval in US and not in any other western country is for the same reason, corporations control the gov't so they can profit. Healthcare is no different.
EXACTLY.
that is the biggest obstacle to UHC.
many have said the same.
it's not the 'cost' of the healthcare...it's getting rid of the corporate involvement!
Comments
I asked you a direct question. this place is for debate is it not? are you only interested in cute one liners or actual debate?
let me know
I have never worked for the government.
its not an intelligent answer. and intelligent answer would provide specific examples of other governments programs and how we can apply it here. whenever you're ready...
what a restrained answer.
given your views on government, especially the fed govt...i thought for sure this question would be greeted by a hearty
getting back to the heart of the thread topic.....i have to say, absolutely, these salaries/stock options/whatever....most definitely are a part of the problem. our healthcare should not be a means of getting rich. healthcare should be just about that.....health....care......not a for profit business. this is not to say that those who make our healthcare possible...doctors...nurses.....scientists...researchers...shouldn't get well paid, they absolutely should! but it is entirely unnecessary to have fat cats earning millions for overseeing a corporation built to be a money-making machine. healthcare shouldn't be a 'business' imo.
jlew....again...others have. i don't see you rehashing your rationale over and over, yet you expect everyone else to, just for you. you want to lecture on what's intelligent and what's debate...more power to ya. your condescension knows no bounds....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
didn't we cover this?
we all pay for heathcare now...
my insurance premium covers many things...
1. commission for the broker that sold me the insurance
2. profit to the insurance company
3. admin for numerous billing clerks that are involved in every transaction involving my medical care
4. my doctor
In France they have virtually no admin costs....no billing clerks, no insurance company profits/CEO Salaries, etc....you walk into a clinic and the only people in there are medical staff...no clerks
there is tremendous SAVINGS in UHC....not sure why you don't see that
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
no they haven't
why can't we make such savings without going to a 100% government control system? how about some regulation in the insurance industry? what do you think about that?
edit: and I do see there are savings in UHC. that doesnt mean we can afford it. we are still talking about tax payer costs into the trillions.
in case you haven't noticed, I'm writing lots of words...not cute one liners here...and thanks for the compliment...when I do toss out the one liners, I think they are kinda cute, too...you're sweet to notice...
what was your question again...?
ok...thanks for the answer...as I said, I've worked for both, and both have there issues...while gov't may get a bad wrap...the issues you mention are similar in private industry...
I do wonder, if you've not worked for the gov't, where do you get you ideas as to how it runs...?
they aren't cute. they really lame and immature.
go read it. or dont bother. you've proven you aren't capable of intelligent debate.
yes but remember we are paying for it now
If we go UHC and I no longer pay $1,000 month for health insurance but my taxes go up $1,000 month I'm still good right?????
come on man
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
what are you quoting?
thank you......and yes, many, many times....
exactly.
*that ALONE would probably save billions...maybe more. couple that with our new tax contributions (individuals + private companies) in lieu of payments to an insurance carrier = funding for UHC. i think we can afford it, i do believe it's doable, just thinking of these 2 issues alone....more than possible.
it's getting RID of the 'for profit' nature of healthcare, and all these for profit organizations based around it tht is the REAL problem, tho it shouldn't be....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
what are you rolling your eyes about skippy? did you not see my direct question to him, and his lame response about me "babbling about something"?
fantastic! problem solved! just because there are savings, doesnt mean UHC becomes anymore affordable.
you keep bringing up cost like there is no cost now....we pay for it now....if UHC comes around we won't have insurance to pay....see? we will have higher taxes but without having to support the insurance companies we eliminate the middle man see?
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
actually, that is EXACTLY what it means........
and we're not talking clipping coupons here...we're talking BILLIONS, perhaps more.....in savings...
you don't see it, idk what else to tell ya.
not only that...b/c it's not just a 'middleman' it's a HUGE money-making profit machine. get rid of that profit, and costs go down, significantly.....seriously significantly. all medical staff/scientists/researchers still well paid, but there will be NO CEO getting a few million each year, etc. incredible savings. healthcare for healthcae...not for profit.
btw - and this is where the 'argument' comes in that w/p profit there is no innovation or quality of care.....which is BS, honestly. there IS quality of care in many health programs....medicare has a higher rathe of patient satisfaction over private insurance (as per the interview with the healthcare insider)....government funding already exists for numerous medical research, innovation intact.
after that, it comes down to just not wanting the government having control. fair enough i guess....but should just say that. i honestly don't know why tho. i seriously cannot imagine the government ham-handling our healthcre any worse than these private companies. this idea of having 'choice' really is a myth imo. the only 'choice' is to choose not to have healthcare, not a wise option imo, and in all honesty...it's in ALl our OWN best interests, in the long-term of costs, for EVERYone to have and utilize healthcare, especially preventative healthcare. beyond that, my 'choice' of healthcare...is entirely dictated by my employer. not much choice there. and w/o emplyer sponsored healthcare...many are simply SOL. great choices....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I told you, urine and corn flakes don't mix...but then again you never bother to listen to anyone other than yourself...as others have said, your question have been answered...however, since you can't comprehend those answers, you assume they were not answered...apparently that's super "intelligent" thing to do...
and you're a confusing fella. first you compliment me then you try to hurt my feelings by saying I'm immature, lame, and that I'm not intelligent...I suppose personal attacks are part of "intelligent debate"...of which you seem to so desperately want...yet you offer none...
well, you can always cling to the "we can't afford it but I offer nothing other than we can't afford it" argument...that seems to working just fine...
yet another example of "intelligent debate"... :(
its not that simple. I currently pay about $80 for my premium and my company pays about $250/300 or so. take that away, how much will my taxes go up? what business taxes go up as well?
and what about the people who maintain a healthy lifestyle and get an insurance plan that covers their needs. for example, a insurance rate of like $20 a month that yields a really high deducible. now, you want to raise their taxes to what?
and what about those who during tough times will temporarily cancel their insurance to save money and live a healthy lifestyle. I did that for a few years while I was out of college. but you want to take away that option for me.
and what happens when there are cost overruns. has the government ever been on budget with a program? no. but somehow they will start now? assuming they dont, how do you pay for it? raise taxes, print money, borrow?
I asked you a direct question about cost of UHC. you offered nothing but insults and immature one liners. come back when you are ready to act like an adult.
using all caps doesnt mean its true. even with cost savings, all estimates point to the cost of UHC in the trillions. I can all cap it for ya if you want.
this outlines many cost options and its a case FOR it.
http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
more insults. I can comprehend answers. show me where they are? and besides, I asked you a direct question.
they aren't personal attacks on you. they are observations. your answer to my direct question about cost of UHC was something about piss and corn flakes. thats lame and immature is it not?
I gave you specific data as to why we can't afford it. I can't help that you choose to ignore it. we are already trillions in debt. the only way we can pay for it would be to raise taxes, borrow more, and print money.
of all people...which here means: of all people on this board to have the balls to tell someone else to act like an adult, yet that same person resorts to personal attacks when they have nothing else to offer...as for you cost question, it's been answered...and why would I bother to take the time to rehash it when you already have your mind made up...
you make like someone is proposing a bad thing...I wonder what your stance would have been back in the day when roads and infrastructure were being built..."paved roads?!?!, we can't afford it!!!, bridges?!?!...we don't need no stinking bridges, people can swim, screw 'em if they can't"....
yes, everyone's taxes will go up to cover the costs. how much - how can we know for sure?
lucky you with your costs....many of us aren't so lucky. i pay in way more than that, and our prices just went up again. perhaps with taxes, some will go up some, some others down, 'even out' the costs a bit....idk.
as to the person and the healthy lifestyle...hate to break it to ya, healthy people get cancer too ya know. so sure, while you can choose to play that roulette, long-term, it's unwise....so yes...yet again, you are correct...you'd have to pay in for healthcare whether you want to or not. kinda like i pay a lot of money for education even tho idon't have children. to me, both are a big part of civilized society....education and healthcare for all.
so it DOES all come down to you wanting to keep your 'choice' of having coverage or not having coverage, etc....not having the government force you to pay towards your healthcare or of others, etc. and hey, you're absolutely right....we ARE discussing taking away that choice from you or anyone. many of us are a-ok with it. you are not. we shall see what the majority really wants and what gets implmented. it's all we can do, let our representatives know our desires, and voice them.
in the long-term, many of us do see how, collectively...it IS in our OWN best interest...as individuals and as a collective community, to have ALL our citizens have access to healthcare. study after study proves just how cost-effective preventative healthcare is, how it improves longevity by preventing and/or catching diseases early....all of these things will improve quality of life, lifespan, and yes....keep our collective healthcare costs down. why is it do you think that we, with our private insurance, have some of THE highest healthcare costs, per person, than elsehwere? and it certainly isn't our 'quality of care'...it's our profit margins...and yea, our prohibitve costs linked to those profits ANd to the costs of not everyone having preventative medicine, getting sick, not getting the early/cheaper preventions or treatments...and it getting out of hand. and even amongst those who DO take care of their health, they too benefit...b/c they too can get sick out of no where.....and they would be more apt to go for regular check-ups, hopefully catching some of these diseases early...if they know they always have coverage. i know quite a few healthy-lifestyle folks, struck with cancer, for example. so yea....we ARE talking about taking away your choice to say no to healthcare, b/c some of us believe it's for the best for us all to have healthcare......
jlew......obviously there are costs....and surely in the trillions. however, that still doesn't mean we can't afford it. there will be savings, there will be costs...no one, including myself, has said otherwise.
and this....
somehow i missed this specific data too. however, i have heard this argument before. yep, we're trillions in debt and yes we would have to raise taxes. agreed. however, this does not mean we cannot afford it. it's been explained a few times, just how we could possibly afford it. you simply don't believe it. we don't need to borrow more $$$ or print more $$4 to make it happen...but you bet....taxes will be raised. however, i am a-ok with paying my $$$ towards a heathcare tax and healthcare for all, for life, rather than what we have now.....lots of my healthcare $$$ NOT going to healthcare, but to profits.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Is UHC affordable? Absolutely - in fact, with nominal increases to taxation even. The problem in the US is that the majority of that spending is going to pay for things that don't really have to deal with health care. When you factor in the profits insurance, pharmaceuticals, treatment clinics, etc. want to make and the management bonuses - it's extremely inefficient. I think a good example is this. The nike shoe. You aren't paying $150 because it costs that much to make the shoe - you are paying that much so phil knight can make a boat load of money and so you can pay tiger woods to wear the logo. UHC is in the same boat - you're spending all that money to make sure all these businesses make lots of money.
The problem is how do you break down this system that ultimately runs this country. The US is at war in Iraq simply so companies who control the gov't can make lots of money; the only reason bovine growth hormone gets FDA approval in US and not in any other western country is for the same reason, corporations control the gov't so they can profit. Healthcare is no different.
did you actually REREAD...yep, caps again.....your statement:
just because there are savings, doesnt mean UHC becomes anymore affordable
seriously?
do you not see it?
if i save an extra $100 a month on my utility bill.....my utilities, therefore my home, becomes more affordable to me. i now have that extra $100 to put towards future utilities, my home, my savings, whatever. same thing with healthcare. if we cut out the FOR PROFIT nature of healthcare...savings of probably billions or more, i now have more $$$ to put towards....healthcare! the $$$ is still there, it's just not going to stockholders...it's going toward healthcare!
you keep saying UHC would cost billions....what do you think healthcare costs NOW? you think it is cheaper now? it might be for you....but it's not for the nation. so if we can payu it in to insurance..we can pay it into taxes....and without that profit margin, hopefully our costs would be less, not more. i just don't see how you don't see this. you don't LIKE it or don't want it...i get it....but how you think we 'can't afford' it....we already do, somehow....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
EXACTLY.
that is the biggest obstacle to UHC.
many have said the same.
it's not the 'cost' of the healthcare...it's getting rid of the corporate involvement!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow