Originally posted by sh76 You can't save ALL the necessary money just by reducing insurance company profits. Sooner or later, you're going to have to provide less care to someone.
Since you haven't shown the slightest inkling that you even know what is in the Health Care Reform Act, I think I'll take your assertions with a grain of salt.
Originally posted by sh76 You can't save ALL the necessary money just by reducing insurance company profits. Sooner or later, you're going to have to provide less care to someone.
You can, of course, also save a lot of money by making insurance companies more efficient and paying doctors less.
Originally posted by no1marauder Since you haven't shown the slightest inkling that you even know what is in the Health Care Reform Act, I think I'll take your assertions with a grain of salt.
I know I'm winning when you start resorting to that sort of ad hominem substance-less nonsense.
Originally posted by no1marauder Since you haven't shown the slightest inkling that you even know what is in the Health Care Reform Act, I think I'll take your assertions with a grain of salt.
For example, sh, the subsidies in the bill would be available for individuals and families up to 400% of the federal poverty level and that formula would be increased in the next few years. So, a family of four making $88,000 would still be eligible for a subsidy. To you that might be "medium income" but in fact it is right around the beginning of the top quintile. So your argument is, as usual, based on ignorance tinged with elitism.
Originally posted by no1marauder For example, sh, the subsidies in the bill would be available for individuals and families up to 400% of the federal poverty level and that formula would be increased in the next few years. So, a family of four making $88,000 would still be eligible for a subsidy. To you that might be "medium income" but in fact it is right around the beginning of the top quintile. So your argument is, as usual, based on ignorance tinged with elitism.
In New York City that is a highish medium income. The costs of living in Biloxi and Witchita Falls don't help the guy who has a family in Westchester and commutes to Manhattan.
Originally posted by sh76 In New York City that is a highish medium income. The costs of living in Biloxi and Witchita Falls don't help the guy who has a family in Westchester and commutes to Manhattan.
And how many of us can truly say, hand on heart, "I know Wichita Falls."
Originally posted by sh76 In New York City that is a highish medium income. The costs of living in Biloxi and Witchita Falls don't help the guy who has a family in Westchester and commutes to Manhattan.
Elitist tripe as usual. Someone making a 100K doesn't need Big Daddy subsidizing his health care anyway. My heart bleeds for the immense difficulties of those who make 6 figures and live in Westchester; obviously they should be the focus of our public health policy and not the average working stiff in Biloxi, Wichita Falls, Detroit, etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by spruce112358 Stop having the left hand try to find ways to pay for something that the right hand heavily restricts the supply of. Instead, allow a massive increase in the number of healthcare providers.
It is so simple. I sometimes wonder why no one get this?
Sure, cut the requirements to be a doctor down to a sixth grade education and really jump up supply. Problem solved in SpruceLand.
Originally posted by sh76 Says no one except for you... as usual.
KN says my plan is "better than Obamacare." No one else seems to think I haven't said anything substantive.
But of course, we're all a bunch of right wing nuts and smug Eurotrash, so how would we know?
Thank you so much for gracing us with your presence, your Holiness.
(but I'm also the "elitist" one, of course) 🙄
Your original claim was that the Health Reform Act was totally unworkable without the individual mandate. It was child's play to show the fallacies of your argument (which you failed to back up with any evidence). Moreover, it was pretty easily shown that you don't have much of a detailed knowledge of the HRA itself. Wouldn't you say that actually knowing something about a law should be a requirement before one proposes measures to replace it?
Originally posted by sh76 1) Give everyone the option of enrolling in Medicare; those under 65 pay market level premiums, which are reduced on a sliding scale based on income. Double the Medicare tax if that's what it takes (or triple it); it will save money in the long run.
2) Deregulate private insurance companies. Treat them like life insurance companies. They can write whatever p ...[text shortened]... w exactly where to draw the line; but I'm willing to bet that someone could figure it out.
So your solution is to increase taxes on the working class, end regulation of a price gouging industry while at the same time increasing the burden on some present policy holders and slash care.
Originally posted by no1marauder Sure, cut the requirements to be a doctor down to a sixth grade education and really jump up supply. Problem solved in SpruceLand.
spruce was making a legitimate point here.
No1, what would be your proposal for ensuring that there's a sufficient supply of providers in the future to meet the rapidly rising demand for healthcare? (which was going to be an issue even without Obama's healthcare plan).
21 Jan '11 15:50
Bad Statistics
Back to Top