provfivetine
Posts: 410
Joined: 2/17/2011
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: provfivetine
Good for them. As someone who is radically opposed to a nationalized single-payer system, I have no problem with individual states trying to socialize health care.
Massachusetts did it, and its doing pretty damn well so far with it. Curious that the one state more deeply in need of good health care coverage for its citizens, is also home to the GOP folks that dont want that care brought to their citizens. Its funny, that they (the GOP) bitch about wasteful spending, and yet, have set things up to create just that every year until someone donates/gives them a brain, or they go bankrupt. The real sad part is, those Americans will suffer needlessly because the ego's of the GOP are simply larger then the Sol System....
quote:
ORIGINAL: provfivetine
This is what should be happening. If states want to provide socialized medicine then let them do it; just don't force the entire country to do it.
You have no idea Mr. Teabagger, of what your talking about. Ever heard of the economic concept 'Scale of Economies'? It means, a larger entity has more resources, influence and power then that of a smaller entity. A town or city would have more power over a health care company, then that of an individual. The state, would have even more power then that of the town or city. Stands to reason, that a nation, would have considerable power over health care companies. So long as the common citizens do not demand better rules, laws, regulations (and inspectors) and hold those politicians that work for the health care companies accountable; they'll never have better health care.
But, the scale of economies doesn't work in a tyrannical manner. As the power level rises, the cost to deal with the issue goes down, as it can be spread much easier over the whole. Which is why no one state of the fifty can pay the US Budget for 2011.....but the Federal goverment...can (now if only it was balanced....).
The goverment option, would have been a 'fail safe' mechanism that kept US Citizens from 'failing through the cracks'. But take a wild guess who didn't want that to happen (and seem to take great delight in the suffering of Americans)?
So states create their own versions of a health care system and find out what works and what doesnt. Most of them will look in to those states in which there is health care coverage for citizens and how it works (well, works with some bugs). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is one such state. Fully 98% of the citizens are coveraged under some form of health care coverage. Whether by private companies, of the individual, or through Mass Health. The cost for Mass Health is less then 2% of the total budget for 2011.
quote:
ORIGINAL: provfivetine
We need more socialist states (and more libertarian states) so that people can just move to a state that suits them. All 50 states are basically the same as it is right now.
Thank you Mr. Simpleton for your 'awesome' and 'amazing' insight in to the problems with our health care system. Please go back to the 4th grade and finish out the rest of the year. Leave the burden of figuring out complex and complicated matters to us adults who have college degrees.
If it was so simple for a person to move to where they wanted to, minus the complications of such an action, I'm sure people would do that. But thats a fantasy, not reality. In the real world, moving to find better health coverage is neither simple or easy process. Explaining it further is well beyond the scope of this thread.
The folks most in need of health coverage, are small businesses. To tiny to make paying health care afforable (and keep profitable) for them, many such companies simply do not offer it. If one of their workers is injured or develops a serious illness.....tough shit. Those small business owners are caught in a deadly catch-22. They know those workers usually on a personal level, and DONT want to see them suffer. But yet affording a care coverage that would cover them, could bankrupt the business as a whole. Maybe you could inform all of us on a system in which this small business owner can cover his worker without going backrupt....without being a 'socialized medicine'.....and keeps him profitable?
I want the FULL system, with COMPLETE details, down to the PENNY. It must cover quite a large swath of problems that are commonly, uncommonly, and rarily encountered by the medical community. After all, you want to bitch about things, so I'm giving you the chance to create the WHOLE thing. And don't worry, I'll drill you on EVERY fine and tiny aspect of your document........just so you can get a taste of your own medicine!
Haha, your post made me laugh; a good rant that says nothing! Talk about someone who doesn't understand the issues (as well as someone who cannot articulate their thoughts in a coherent manner).
So you have a college degree? From which worthless university is it from? I'm completing my Master's degree at Harvard, and am studying economics as a minor. What are your credentials? Maybe you should leave the economic talk for those of us that actually understand economics because you obviously are intellectually confused. I would like to address your arguments, but you make none.
I live in MA, and as a result of their witchcraft they now have the highest premiums in the country. So... you say it's "working" in MA? Just because you assert that it's working, doesn't make it so. These statistics are quite shocking... please read: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa657.pdf - (this is called scientific research - not mindless arbitrary assertions - do you understand this?)
Here are some MA health care facts: http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/25/health-care-mitt-romney_2.html
"The Massachusetts Medical Society found that 56% of physicians are not taking on new patients. Wait times for appointments are climbing. Just two years after reform took root, one clinic in Western Massachusetts had amassed a waiting list of 1,600 patients. RomneyCare expanded coverage simply by putting more people on the dole. Since 2006, 440,000 people have been added to state-funded insurance rolls. Medicaid enrollment alone is up nearly 25%, and Massachusetts is struggling to cover the cost. Despite the expansion of insurance coverage, people are continuing to seek routine medical care in expensive emergency rooms. Emergency room visits climbed 9%—or 3 million visits—between 2004 and 2008. The bill for uncompensated care has exceeded $400 million. That’s only the tip of the RomneyCare cost iceberg. Originally projected to cost $1.8 billion this year, the reform effort is now expected to exceed those estimates by $150 million. An analysis from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that state spending on health care reform grew from $1.04 billion in 2006 to about $1.75 billion in 2010. Over the next 10 years, RomneyCare will likely cost $2 billion more than predicted. Massachusetts taxpayers are not only footing the bill for all this new public spending—they’re also facing higher rates for private coverage. A 2010 study published in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy found that health insurance premiums in Massachusetts were increasing at a rate 3.7% slower than the national average prior to the implementation of RomneyCare. Post-overhaul, they’re increasing 5.8% faster. Annual premium hikes in the state have averaged 7.5% since 2000. The average employer-sponsored family health plan costs nearly $14,000. That’s higher than anywhere else in the nation."
I'm expecting you to come back with the usual progressive response, "CATO and FORBES are evil/biased/not right/out to defend the rich/etc. If you want to critique these studies; critique their research methodology - don't be Mr. Simpleton and use 4th grade logic.
< Message edited by provfivetine -- 4/28/2011 11:02:56 PM >
|
Vermont Senate gives initial OK to single-payer health ... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread