The only problem with ObamaCare is that there is no Public Option. -I can’t help but feel sorry for you righties though. You actually think limiting Insurance Companies’ abuse of the sick and weak is a BAD thing! I mean, really??-Wake up, morons. Insurance Companies were already making record profits. And it was your Republican obstructionism that caused the dumbing down of this bill you all hate so much…
First of all: It isn’t Obamacare, it’s Romneycare. It was, is, and always has been a Republican plan. You can tell because it provides more money to the insurance companies.Second of all: it does save some money, but it would have saved more if Obama had gotten his second choice (a nonprofit insurance company administered by the government), and WAY more if he had gotten his first (single-payer).In practice, this law has made some valuable changes (eliminating “preexisting conditions” as an excuse, for example), but the bottom line is that it still incorporates a significant amount of inefficiency in terms of profits for insurance companies, because Obama couldn’t convince the supposedly free-market people (who say that government is inefficient) to compete with a nonprofit government insurer. Gee.We would save money if we only extended Medicare down!Fact time: Americans pay more for their healthcare than anyone else in the world, and 50% more than #2. We can do better than that.
“Single payer” doesn’t mean “socialized medicine” and neither does government negotiating prices to keep costs down. It’s interesting that “corporate capitalists” are the ones opposed to cost savings that favor the actual “taxpayers”.
It’s hard to fathom where this idea came from that private insurance drives down costs. Capitalism functions as it should in the doctor-patient relationship. If your doctor gives poor service or charges too much, find another doctor. The insurance company is a third party in the transaction. They’re “needed” because medical expenses are often large, unexpected, and more than the patient can afford. Their profit motive runs counter to the needs and wants of both doctor and patient. Complex and confusing policies and claims paperwork create reasons for denials, giving insurance companies little reason to be efficient. Even worse, they have a hand in determining which treatments are performed, with the decision made by consultants who never see the patient.
Single payer lowers costs, period. The evidence is there if you’re willing to look. When the government takes on the simple role of leveling costs, they don’t destroy efficiency, they remove a costly leech from our healthcare system.
kreole over 12 years ago
Affordable only if you can afford it.
ossiningaling over 12 years ago
They don’t look evil to the average plumber. That’s half the problem.
Noveltman over 12 years ago
The only problem with ObamaCare is that there is no Public Option. -I can’t help but feel sorry for you righties though. You actually think limiting Insurance Companies’ abuse of the sick and weak is a BAD thing! I mean, really??-Wake up, morons. Insurance Companies were already making record profits. And it was your Republican obstructionism that caused the dumbing down of this bill you all hate so much…
Motivemagus over 12 years ago
First of all: It isn’t Obamacare, it’s Romneycare. It was, is, and always has been a Republican plan. You can tell because it provides more money to the insurance companies.Second of all: it does save some money, but it would have saved more if Obama had gotten his second choice (a nonprofit insurance company administered by the government), and WAY more if he had gotten his first (single-payer).In practice, this law has made some valuable changes (eliminating “preexisting conditions” as an excuse, for example), but the bottom line is that it still incorporates a significant amount of inefficiency in terms of profits for insurance companies, because Obama couldn’t convince the supposedly free-market people (who say that government is inefficient) to compete with a nonprofit government insurer. Gee.We would save money if we only extended Medicare down!Fact time: Americans pay more for their healthcare than anyone else in the world, and 50% more than #2. We can do better than that.
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
“Single payer” doesn’t mean “socialized medicine” and neither does government negotiating prices to keep costs down. It’s interesting that “corporate capitalists” are the ones opposed to cost savings that favor the actual “taxpayers”.
Spaghettus1 over 12 years ago
It’s hard to fathom where this idea came from that private insurance drives down costs. Capitalism functions as it should in the doctor-patient relationship. If your doctor gives poor service or charges too much, find another doctor. The insurance company is a third party in the transaction. They’re “needed” because medical expenses are often large, unexpected, and more than the patient can afford. Their profit motive runs counter to the needs and wants of both doctor and patient. Complex and confusing policies and claims paperwork create reasons for denials, giving insurance companies little reason to be efficient. Even worse, they have a hand in determining which treatments are performed, with the decision made by consultants who never see the patient.
Single payer lowers costs, period. The evidence is there if you’re willing to look. When the government takes on the simple role of leveling costs, they don’t destroy efficiency, they remove a costly leech from our healthcare system.