It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House passes GOP Health Bill.

page: 23
25
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All those steps reduce "election fixing and fraud" that the DNC relies upon to get candidates into office - cry me a river.


You probably should've checked the links I posted before saying that since they were about the discriminatory voter id laws. Both links showed how the voter id laws in Texas and North Carolina were shown to be discriminatory & unconstitutional in a court of law.

And then there are congressional districts in Texas (HERE) and all of the state legislative districts in North Carolina (HERE)that have been ruled unconstitutional for racial discrimination.

Yet, unsurprisingly, you instantly assumed that it was the DNC's fault and that it was the DNC that was trying to rig the system when the courts reached the exact opposite conclusion.




posted on May, 5 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan


Well, for one, the money automatically goes further because the insurance company profit margins are reduced.



What is commonly acceptable 10% ? Insurance executives will love this as its 10% of a much larger pie. Great example is some states got bright idea in early 2000's to turn over heathcare administration to United Healthcare, subsequently UHC reported record profits. They gutted programs for the money.




Two, since the government is operating on a larger scale than a regional provider they can purchase services at a better rate. That's how insurance works, it's collective bargaining. A pool of 320 million has more bargaining power than smaller pools of 2000 people each.



That's fine idea when pricing is truly free market, but with some markups as much as 1000% over cost to produce - choice is do we get raped excessively or massively - that's not a choice at all is it?




Three, administrative costs are reduced.



Have you lost your mind, ever looked at cost of beauracracy and it's employees.




Four, under single payer the government still isn't taking over private industry. They're the customer in such a scenario, not the provider. All of the medical providers, device manufacturers, medicine distributors, and so on still exist. Free market competition is still there as providers compete to get contracts. The difference is that the government pays for the services in the form of annual contracts rather than each customer paying with much less leverage.



Again with the "not free market" that exists you are getting the "do I get raped excessively or exceedingly massively" conundrum.




Five, since it's based on taxes, the tax burden can be scaled to income. The middle class who are already paying disproportionately high rates for their medical care would actually see a rather nice increase in income, because they would pay less in taxes than they're paying now in premiums and out of pocket costs.


Besides wondering why taxpayer should accept higher load without government application of long existing law to reign in the greed which really begs an answer.

You along with many other see the government as a big black bottomless pit of never ending money.

Yeah everyday they print and borrow more which has diminished what little value it had to a visible point on the horizon that we'll look same as Venezuela or Weimar Republic, Heathcare will be least of your problems.




edit on 5-5-2017 by Phoenix because: Crazy phone

edit on 5-5-2017 by Phoenix because: Crazy phone



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Still amounts to what I said it is, ID is good, checking and correcting voter roles is good. Under your and judges opinion sending people to prison for crimes is disparate also - cry me a river.

I see you had no comments on upholding current longstanding law but have much to say on judicial invention of new law.




posted on May, 5 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan

I guess what you do not realize is we were told the same lies when obamacare was passed.


No we weren't.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

They'll probably kill it at senate



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
What is commonly acceptable 10% ? Insurance executives will love this as its 10% of a much larger pie. Great example is some states got bright idea in early 2000's to turn over heathcare administration to United Healthcare, subsequently UHC reported record profits. They gutted programs for the money.


Why would insurance executives love single payer? Single payer would put the entire insurance industry out of business. Insurance simply cannot exist on a product like health care where getting seriously ill is extremely common if not guaranteed. The concept of insurance is that people pay a little bit extra on average in order to be protected against rare catastrophic events. Not only is that not what people actually mean they want when they talk about health insurance, but that concept doesn't exist with health care because it's a near certainty that we're all going to be gravely injured/ill at some point in our lives. The catastrophic isn't a rare event, it's extremely common, and therefore an insurance model does not work for health care.



That's fine idea when pricing is truly free market, but with some markups as much as 1000% over cost to produce - choice is do we get raped excessively or massively - that's not a choice at all is it?


Government has many more tools to reign in costs than the democratic voting with your dollars does. Not only can government legislate prices, but thanks to scale they can choose better prices. Furthermore, they have access to the entire nation of providers, or if necessary the world. They can make providers compete for business in a way that the individual cannot.



Have you lost your mind, ever looked at cost of beauracracy and it's employees.


Medicare has far lower administrative costs than the private sector.



Besides wondering why taxpayer should accept higher load without government application of long existing law to reign in the greed which really begs an answer.


Would you rather pay $30 for a service to the private sector or $15 to government for the same service?



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Id rather currently existing laws be applied and pay 10% of today's prices

Then we all could afford our healthcare.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ComodoreBlack
a reply to: FauxMulder

They'll probably kill it at senate


If the Senate kills the AHCA, the system that President Trump has repeatedly admired for decades, Universal Healthcare, is the next stop in our journey.

I wonder if he would call for a National Vote for such a major undertaking. Seems only fair. Give us the major pros and cons, (benefits vs cost for every American) then let the American people decide.

Whatever happens, it needs to be FAST. So many aspects of ObamaCare are unraveling that entire sections of the country will be without health insurance and/or healthcare providers, on 1.1.2018. Insurers and States need to know what to expect many months before then. We're running out of time.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Aazadan

Id rather currently existing laws be applied and pay 10% of today's prices

Then we all could afford our healthcare.



That's not how the market works though, and no... at 10% of todays prices there would still be many who couldn't afford health care.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Phoenix
What is commonly acceptable 10% ? Insurance executives will love this as its 10% of a much larger pie. Great example is some states got bright idea in early 2000's to turn over heathcare administration to United Healthcare, subsequently UHC reported record profits. They gutted programs for the money.


Why would insurance executives love single payer? Single payer would put the entire insurance industry out of business. Insurance simply cannot exist on a product like health care where getting seriously ill is extremely common if not guaranteed. The concept of insurance is that people pay a little bit extra on average in order to be protected against rare catastrophic events. Not only is that not what people actually mean they want when they talk about health insurance, but that concept doesn't exist with health care because it's a near certainty that we're all going to be gravely injured/ill at some point in our lives. The catastrophic isn't a rare event, it's extremely common, and therefore an insurance model does not work for health care.



That's fine idea when pricing is truly free market, but with some markups as much as 1000% over cost to produce - choice is do we get raped excessively or massively - that's not a choice at all is it?


Government has many more tools to reign in costs than the democratic voting with your dollars does. Not only can government legislate prices, but thanks to scale they can choose better prices. Furthermore, they have access to the entire nation of providers, or if necessary the world. They can make providers compete for business in a way that the individual cannot.



Have you lost your mind, ever looked at cost of beauracracy and it's employees.


Medicare has far lower administrative costs than the private sector.



Besides wondering why taxpayer should accept higher load without government application of long existing law to reign in the greed which really begs an answer.


Would you rather pay $30 for a service to the private sector or $15 to government for the same service?


Id rather pay a lot less and keep the government out of inefficiently running another program.

It's a complete myth that Medicare is ran more efficiently than private insurance.

www.google.com...



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

If they modeled single payer after Medicare, but kept it separate....the insurance companies would still be able to make money....selling supplemental insurance.

But no matter what happens---single payer or something else---without tort reform, price controls and drug prices being capped and reigned in....insurance will still be too damn expensive.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
I didn't like the caca of Obama bill and I am hell bend sure that I will no like this parody of the Caca bill by the Republicans

Why? because as long as the insurance corruption agencies have full control of the health industry we the people will get nothing but crap as usual.

Yup. I'm really, really concerned about my mom. She has COPD and cancer that has spread twice. Her medication is beyond expensive and the chemo drugs... my gawd. I can't believe what they cost.

As for myself: Thyroid disease and anemia. I've already had to have a blood transfusion once and I'm nervous how this is all going to play out. Really sick of insurers holding our lives in their greedy corporate hands and telling us our treatment isn't necessary enough for them to pay.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Horse poop or poppy cock, take your pick.

At 10% cost taxpayer can carry your ass just fine.

I read up thread what your situation is and fully understand why you'd be for perpetuating currently ongoing fraud - it's understandable you want fraud that can be counted upon.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Aazadan

If they modeled single payer after Medicare, but kept it separate....the insurance companies would still be able to make money....selling supplemental insurance.

But no matter what happens---single payer or something else---without tort reform, price controls and drug prices being capped and reigned in....insurance will still be too damn expensive.


I fully agree on tort reform, should be loser pays system.

There are legitimate claims that should stand that test, all others are fishing for legal lottery win at everyones else's exspense.

Drugs can easily be addressed by allowing reimportation which would level world market, right now US is closed market where it's whatever market will pay.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Aazadan

Id rather currently existing laws be applied and pay 10% of today's prices

Then we all could afford our healthcare.



That's not how the market works though, and no... at 10% of todays prices there would still be many who couldn't afford health care.


But the only reason the market works as it does is by government inaction on those laws I've pointed out.

Why - lobbyists money - that's why

Antifa cracks me up because what they're protesting is really trivial given this subject and the level of theft, fraud and collusion involved.

Guess you'd rather play safe and either take the publics money or graft off of other employees of firm you may work for.

Dude, it's fraud to support this system, period no way out of it.




edit on 5-5-2017 by Phoenix because: Phone won't link properly



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Look everyone insurance is not heathcare.

Insurance companies will quote you what it costs plus a profit based on actuarial tables.

The insurance company gives a rats ass about heathcare costs other than setting up policy charges

When policy charges skyrocket due government dictat such as Obama Care you either like it because you got something for nothing, or hate it because you got hosed on insurance.

Hosed on insurance is majority of people.

Naturally you blame insurance companies as the problem.

Wrong!

The problem is provider costs.



edit on 6-5-2017 by Phoenix because: Stupid phone



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I am 56 YO and pay cash out of pocket about $300 annually for B.P check and maintenance prescription which is another $100 annually. Grand total $400 bucks.

My two kids are healthy beyond measure.

Why on God's green earth would I sign up for a plan that has $3000 to $5000 deductible and costs $12,000 a year for family coverage. Why that'd be stupid for family finances.

You people wanting single payer or government coverage are greedy thieves to folks like me and are leeching my savings which were hard earned.

I'm sure you have heartstrings a singing about why rest of us should pay your way.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

You are like the rest of us. Bitch and moan all you want but you dont live on a private island. Tug the heartstrings of your senators.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Thank God the Republican's are finally putting an end to that 'Death Panel' Palin warned us about. The humanity...



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: FauxMulder
I was just about to post this....One hurdle down.

Indeed...a veritable landslide! So please explain why this will be a good thing for Americans.

I actually didn't take a stand either way good or bad...Just saying that it passed a hurdle is all.....
You obviously have a strong opinion so let's hear yours.
Forgive me, I interpreted 'one hurdle down' as approval from you. As to my opinion, I'm simply wondering how this new scheme will be an improvement on the last. Being Canadian, it's all crazy talk as far as I'm concerned.



Trumpcare is just like putting lipstick on a pig
These are the main winners still

www.opensecrets.org...

Top Lobbying Industries

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $3,146,090,212
Insurance $2,190,651,832




top topics



 
25
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join