Heath care: explain 'the mandate' to me.

[Ruminator]

@Euphonious_Polemic

We are not “swapping out” components. We’re looking for the right blend of public and private to save maximum money and resources. We’re interested in the best system, not an ideologically pure system.

Looking for the “right blend of public & private”? …Do you write political speeches because that was marketing spin for “reduced benefits” if I ever saw one.

I call BS on the reason we pay less.

Another constructive comment. Ok, thank you for your time.

[Ruminator]

@Broomstick

You know he won’t give the cites - all he has is exceptionalism, gut feelings, and talking points. If he had something to back up his claims he would have posted it by now.

I have posted them before. A person with average skills on google can find them with no trouble at all. It’s not like the information is hidden.

If you want to believe UHC costs less, you will continue to believe it regardless of the cites. My theory is that many cites outline yucky math and people are math illiterate.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

So you try to say that UHC will lead to deficits. When I show you an example of a country with UHC that posted 12 years in a row of surpluses, you come up with excuses.

Still looking for the cite that the US proposal will cover illegal immigrants, or that it will cover 100 million Mexicans living in Mexico.

[Ruminator]

@Euphonious_Polemic

When I show you an example of a country with UHC that posted 12 years in a row of surpluses, you come up with excuses.

Ok, if the USA implements UHC, it will have 12 years of surpluses. I can’t believe no one ever thought of that solution before. :smack:

Still looking for the cite that the US proposal will cover illegal immigrants, or that it will cover 100 million Mexicans living in Mexico.

I never said US proposal will cover 100 million Mexicans. For you to misrepresent what I said just shows you’re not willing to debate this honestly. Good night.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Ruminator

Ok, if the USA implements UHC, it will have 12 years of surpluses. I can’t believe no one ever thought of that solution before. :smack:

I did not imply that you would have surpluses. As I have clearly stated, I was simply providing a counter example to your supposition that UHC would automatically lead to deficits.

@Ruminator

I never said US proposal will cover 100 million Mexicans. For you to misrepresent what I said just shows you’re not willing to debate this honestly. Good night.

My deepest apologies:

You said:

Originally Posted by Ruminator
#4 you don’t have 100 million Mexicans directly south of your border to strain your UHC

So how are the 100 million Mexicans directly south of your border going to strain the Heathcare of the USA?

[What_the]

@BobLibDem

Why are profits even an issue? So what if the stockholders only report a few percent as profit? The issue is the total amount of money that they take from us. We pay for their huge bureaucracies and huge buildings and bloated staffs. They have huge overheads which we pay for, yet we’re only supposed to worry about how much corporate profit they have? The true measure is how much to they take from us, and how much of that is actually spent on medical care for us.

Profits are an issue when the concept is used to demonize some of the players.

I get alot more value out of the money I choose to send to an insurance company than the money that governments take from me.

[Broomstick]

@Ruminator

A person with average skills on google can find them with no trouble at all. It’s not like the information is hidden.

But you can not be bothered to list direct links. This leads me to think you don’t actually know where the information is.

If you want to believe UHC costs less, you will continue to believe it regardless of the cites. My theory is that many cites outline yucky math and people are math illiterate.

I think people who purchase health care based solely on what costs less are extremely foolish. I am interested in best results which may, in fact, cost a bit more than rock-bottom Wally-world prices.

Despite your doom-saying, the rest of the civilized world continues to get better results for less cost. I fail to see why you think it is so impossible to achieve the same goals here in the US. While I have no doubt it is possible to screw up health care reform, I do not take it as a given that it will automatically be a disaster. Why should I, when so many other countries have achieved better results than we have under our current jacked-up “system”?