Jump to content

Repeal and Replace ObamaCare NOW


merrill
 Share

Recommended Posts

The United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations onhealthcare – $8160 per capita – yet performs poorly in comparison and leaves over 46 million people without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

 

Let’s direct OUR tax dollars to fund OUR medical CARE by our own choice. LET'S REDUCE THE COST OF GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATION TODAY!

 

Medical insurance cannot get any better than this:

 

IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL would cover every person for all necessary medical care 24/7 to include:

 

* Wellness

 

* prescription drugs

 

* hospital

 

* surgical

 

* outpatient services

 

* primary and preventive care

 

* emergency services

 

* dental

 

* mental health

 

* home health

 

* physical therapy

 

* rehabilitation (including for substance abuse)

 

* vision care

 

* hearing services including hearing aids

 

* chiropractic

 

* durable

 

* medical equipment

 

* palliative care

 

* long term care

 

No deductibles No Co-pays

 

 

PAY LESS GET MORE

 

Medicare must exist in the fragmented world that is American health care—but no matter how creative the opponents of single-payer get, there is no way they can show convincingly how the administrative costs of a single-payer system could come close to the current level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On July 6, 2009 the WASHINGTON POST reported on two aspects of this easy flow between government and industry, money and politics. "Familiar Players in Health Bill Lobbying Firms Are Enlisting Ex-Lawmakers, Aides," documents the revolving door: "The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records."

In addition, the POST story calculated the amount that the health industry is spending to lobby against elements of proposed health care reform to the tune of $1.4 million a day. Indeed, "Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

lobbying.jpg

The POST relied on federal records and watchdogs groups who crunch the numbers on money and politics in Washington. Learn more and begin your own investigation below.

OpenSecrets.org

The Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, maintains a number of comprehensive resources on money and politics on their Web site, OpenSecrets.org. Their health care coverage provides several ways to investigate ties between politicians and industry.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile2.html

The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.

The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.

 

Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.

 

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention.

 

For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html?hpid=topnews

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations onhealthcare – $8160 per capita – yet performs poorly in comparison and leaves over 46 million people without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

 

Let’s direct OUR tax dollars to fund OUR medical CARE by our own choice. LET'S REDUCE THE COST OF GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATION TODAY!

 

I've challenged you before to show me ANY country who reduced their healthcare costs when they started nationalized healthcare.

You can't because it has never happened.

 

But somehow, YOU think that YOU can do it, when no one else could.

The majority of our healthcare spending is done by the government in their "single payer" medicare and medicaid spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've challenged you before to show me ANY country who reduced their healthcare costs when they started nationalized healthcare.

You can't because it has never happened.

 

But somehow, YOU think that YOU can do it, when no one else could.

The majority of our healthcare spending is done by the government in their "single payer" medicare and medicaid spending. When

 

When the middle man is gone of course the cost of health care is reduced because consumers are no longer supporting the NOT necessary arm of health care.

The cost could be reduced 30%-35% off the top due to elimination of a ton of administrative paperwork.

 

Why should consumers be supporting multi-million $$$$$ golden parachutes and advertising and special interest campaign contributions and 8 lobbyists per elected official?

 

The other industrialized nations are NOT supporting a middle man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol... ^^ this moron buys every lie liberals tell him.

 

 

 

how do they decrease the costs idiot

 

 

they take a profit off the system

 

 

 

that means it costs more huh stupid

As much as I don't think this system is perfect, I agree with you that it is better than Obamacare. So you have my support on this idea.

 

what part do you claim is bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how do they decrease the costs idiot

they take a profit off the system

that means it costs more huh stupid

what part do you claim is bad

Show me anything government has ever done, that costs less than when the private sector does it.

You can't. Doesn't happen.

 

Government is the biggest monopoly in the world, and monopolies ALWAYS drive up costs and prices. ALWAYS.

This is simple economics.

Take a class. You're an embarrassment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've challenged you before to show me ANY country who reduced their healthcare costs when they started nationalized healthcare.

 

You can't because it has never happened.

 

So, you know what other countries were spending, on health-care, before they went nationalized??

Fine.....let's see their numbers.

relaxing-outside-smiley-emoticon.gif

You're on-the-clock......

<tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick>.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When the middle man is gone of course the cost of health care is reduced because consumers are no longer supporting the NOT necessary arm of health care.

The cost could be reduced 30%-35% off the top due to elimination of a ton of administrative paperwork.

 

Why should consumers be supporting multi-million $$$$$ golden parachutes and advertising and special interest campaign contributions and 8 lobbyists per elected official?

 

The other industrialized nations are NOT supporting a middle man.

Once again, your rhetoric is meaningless because you can't show a single instance where government took over healthcare and reduced costs.

It simply doesn't happen, but you refuse to learn from other people's mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, your rhetoric is meaningless because you can't show a single instance where government took over healthcare and reduced costs.

It simply doesn't happen, but you refuse to learn from other people's mistakes.

 

relaxing-outside-smiley-emoticon.gif

ANY TIME, THERE, BALL-BOY......

<tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick>.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've challenged you before to show me ANY country who reduced their healthcare costs when they started nationalized healthcare.

You can't because it has never happened.

 

But somehow, YOU think that YOU can do it, when no one else could.

The majority of our healthcare spending is done by the government in their "single payer" medicare and medicaid spending.

Sounds like apple-orange to me, what difference does it make? It costs less to provide 100% national health care (NHC) because you eliminate the middle men. What services you provide and demand determines the costs. The middle men are raking in billions, and most likely why we have the most expensive health care in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the middle man is gone of course the cost of health care is reduced because consumers are no longer supporting the NOT necessary arm of health care.

The cost could be reduced 30%-35% off the top due to elimination of a ton of administrative paperwork.

Why should consumers be supporting multi-million $$$$$ golden parachutes and advertising and special interest campaign contributions and 8 lobbyists per elected official?

The other industrialized nations are NOT supporting a middle man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ admitting he can't prove the left's claims that single payer reduces costs.

Thanks, faceplant.

The U.S. spent $8,233 on health per person in 2010. Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the next highest spenders, but in the same year, they all spent at least $3,000 less per person. The average spending on health care among the other 33 developed OECD countries was $3,268 per person.

 

Oh my!!! I can see reduced cost written all over that left claim. My My, what will goofy do now?? Deflect, change the topic, refuse to answer??

 

 

Oh my!!! Lookie here goofy, something is amiss,

 

US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_

 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=patient+health+care+cost+by+country&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously the medical insurance industry knows nothing about reducing the costs. We have felt that impact for 50 years as our wallets are shaken down annually.

 

Republican Senator Bill Frist family Health Care Providers ripped Medicare for billions so health care providers must be over charging across the board while consumers barely

have enough coverage for the everyday cold.

 

BTW golfboy have you received your refund for being over charged yet?

 

Show us how much health care providers and the medical insurance industry are saving USA consumers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When the middle man is gone of course the cost of health care is reduced because consumers are no longer supporting the NOT necessary arm of health care.

The cost could be reduced 30%-35% off the top due to elimination of a ton of administrative paperwork.

Why should consumers be supporting multi-million $$$$$ golden parachutes and advertising and special interest campaign contributions and 8 lobbyists per elected official?

The other industrialized nations are NOT supporting a middle man.

 

Still waiting for a country that reduced costs when they took over their healthcare system.

It's a simple question, why won't any of you answer it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still waiting for a country that reduced costs when they took over their healthcare system.

It's a simple question, why won't any of you answer it?

Wait, your question was "admitting he can't prove the left's claims that single payer reduces costs." I showed you it does.

 

Now show me a country that when they left National Health Care for privatization healthcare Insurance plans, the citizens paid less for the same coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, your question was "admitting he can't prove the left's claims that single payer reduces costs." I showed you it does.

 

Now show me a country that when they left National Health Care for privatization healthcare Insurance plans, the citizens paid less for the same coverage.

you lie too much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, your question was "admitting he can't prove the left's claims that single payer reduces costs." I showed you it does.

 

Now show me a country that when they left National Health Care for privatization healthcare Insurance plans, the citizens paid less for the same coverage.

No you didn't because they don't provide the same healthcare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, your question was "admitting he can't prove the left's claims that single payer reduces costs." I showed you it does.

 

Now show me a country that when they left National Health Care for privatization healthcare Insurance plans, the citizens paid less for the same coverage.

You didn't show anything. You're just splashing in a shallow pool of data and trying to draw conclusions that it doesn't actually show.

 

That said, there is no solid evidence that priviaization of healthcare would be more efficient at all. Even if I could pull one individual example out it would be irrelevant and it wouldn't change your opinion anyway, so I don't know why you are asking for one. It's irrelevant. There are pros and cons to both public and private healthcare. It's very, very, hard to say which is better in a given circumstance.

No you didn't because they don't provide the same healthcare.

This is also very important. In the UK our healthcare is so bad that it's almost not worth having unless it's an emergency op.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THERE IS NOTHING FREE ABOUT OUR TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR OUR MEDICAL CARE. TAX DOLLARS = OUR MONEY TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR WE THE TAXPAYERS.

 

The United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations onhealthcare – $8160 per capita – yet performs poorly in comparison and leaves over 46 million people without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

Let’s direct OUR tax dollars to fund OUR medical CARE by our own choice. LET'S REDUCE THE COST OF GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATION TODAY!

Medical insurance cannot get any better than this:

IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL would cover every person for all necessary medical care 24/7 to include:

* Wellness

* prescription drugs

* hospital

* surgical

* outpatient services

* primary and preventive care

* emergency services

* dental

* mental health

* home health

* physical therapy

* rehabilitation (including for substance abuse)

* vision care

* hearing services including hearing aids

* chiropractic

* durable

* medical equipment

* palliative care

* long term care

No deductibles No Co-pays

PAY LESS GET MORE

Medicare must exist in the fragmented world that is American health care—but no matter how creative the opponents of single-payer get, there is no way they can show convincingly how the administrative costs of a single-payer system could come close to the current level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...