I like the part where the officials who are doing the complaining are the same ones caught steeling the supplies sent to aide for themselves.
Yeah - so you agree, it?s fucked up.
I like the part where the officials who are doing the complaining are the same ones caught steeling the supplies sent to aide for themselves.
Matt-
So when you read academic studies and they lay out where their limitations are that doesn't mean they don't have merit-it means they show their work.
It means it's not settled science no matter how many times you tell yourself it is. Keep picking and choosing your facts and you'll always be right.
And the UK being used as an example is perfectly acceptable when it's one of the few used in your precious research no matter how much yoou try to minimize it's importance.
This is what real winning looks like.
And there you have it folks. Willful ignorance and unwilling to educate themselves. It's pretty basic Ray. There are Corporate Group Policies that work VERY well right now. The EO tries to mimic what we're doing right. It's something to try before this situation gets even worse. To not like this for Political reasoning is simply absurd. True Colors Ray. Maybe you should go reup your NYT and WAPO subscriptions? I hear there are offering some great deals right now.
Did you even read the EO Ray?
First, your article is from 2009. Second, nowhere does it mention the cost difference compared to group size. Keep swinging, and missing Scott.
We see our insurer on an extremely constant basis trying to save money, it's the little things I notice. The problem is systemic, and contrary to what Ray thinks, is much deeper than insurance companies being greedy. Let's examine why ambulance rides are $500 or $100 per mile, or an aspirin is $45. Hmmmmmmmm
Scott already pointed out that your perspective appears to be borne from your experience and yours alone. Myopic often?
Oh, and the EO. So if you want to discuss the EO, sure, I read it-did you read the part(s) where it continued to say "consistent with the law"?
Who makes the law, Brian?
The fact that you can write that it is trying to do something write about the same administration that is withholding payments in order to see the health care that people are using fail (and have publically stated as much) at the same time is amusing-except for those that count on their health care. Brian.
I know you aren't worried though, the EO will fix that.
Simply put the EO won't have the same effect that a substantive revision to public policy would (aka fixing the law, regardless of replace/repeal or modification) because it simply can't achieve the same scope and breadth-and that is woven into the EO itself.
That's aside from returning to the hypocrisy inherent with an EO, Brian. You remember that commentary-right, but its different? (do we need to roll out the tired commentary of 7 years of talking about something but having no plan makes the GOP a fraud? I know Matt argues they should get a pass for that b/c you should be able to use it as a platform plank but to actually be held accountable is too much).
To not see this is a mere politics is absurd, to your point about liking it or not.
So yeah, I read the EO. Still waiting to be tired of winning.
Here. From 2018. Healthcare costs have been increasing annually between 6-9% since 2009. GDP has been 2-3%/year....2-3x
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/behind-the-numbers.html
And what have I been saying (you can go back and look)? Claiming everyone has insurance, or providing subsidies, or whatever, doesn't change the fact that it costs north of $10k/year for insurance per person. That is directly related to costs (see also the PWC article). The only way to SIGNIFICANTLY affect costs is to have a very large and dominant organization having the power to set prices with hospitals, Drs, etc. One current example of that is Medicare.
That, logically, leads one to the conclusion that the only want to significantly control costs is to go to single payer.
I've been saying that for well over a year.
Ray, you're in over your head here.
Fact: Major Group plans saw a 5% premium increase in 2016
Fact: ACA plans saw anywhere from a 250% - 480% increase in premiums in 2016
It's a two fold problem and large group plans drastically reduce premiums, FACT.
This debate is over on my end, we'll let it play out and I'll talk about it again once more winning happens.
Oh, if the Republicans can get Rand on board looks like Tax overhaul may happen. Good stuff for America. Doubt we'll get the lemmings on the other side to partake though.
It's a two fold problem and large group plans drastically reduce premiums, FACT.
Read what I wrote Ray. This is all noise from the side that fucked us to begin with. If there would be a double fuck it would be called single-payer. Let's take away options to choose, very American. (Sarcasm, Scott).
Yep, it is. That's how insurance works. Many spread the risk for the few.
So why are you so against the ACA, which mandates everyone buy insurance, thus creating the "large group plans?"
ETA:
Your logic doesn't follow. If "large group plans" are the solution, doesn't if follow that the larger is better? That getting the largest group you can (AKA - single payer) would be best? Yet you say it wouldn't be - why not?
Because single payer takes away choice and most centainly lower care.
Tell you what Scott. Make every member of Congress join and utilize our new single payer system and I?m all in. Otherwise, stay the hell away from our health care. Deal?
No deal, won?t ever happen Scott. Very telling.
Tell you what Scott. Make every member of Congress join and utilize our new single payer system and I?m all in.
This is a good idea. How about you rally your side to it?
It's only a matter of a generation or two before there is single payer. The writing is on the wall. Remember the wisdom of Mark Twain: "The liberals of today are the conservatives of tomorrow."
It's only a matter of a generation or two before there is single payer. The writing is on the wall. Remember the wisdom of Mark Twain: "The liberals of today are the conservatives of tomorrow."
I take that as geriatric conservatives croak, the young liberals age, and they become the new conservatives relative to a new generation of young liberals.
I take that as liberals turn into conservatives as they go though life and deal with all the nonsense. The old red white and blue fist can get tiring.