2020 Democrat hopefuls

[UCFKnight85]

View embedded media

If Trump really scraps pre existing conditions he is giving the other side a political gift.

Some of the idiot mouth breathers in lower income brackets that didn’t know Obamacare and ACA are the same thing now rely on it and like it

No, if people like Robert from Texas and his band of leftie loonies run on Medicare for All, THEY are giving the political gift. Because at some point they'll have to answer for the $3.5 - $4 Trillion additional annual price tag that it comes with and like today, they'll have no way to answer for it.

We can hear about how awesome and easy "guaranteed universal health care" is until someone forces the payment question.

 

[Poolside Knight]

scrapping pre existing conditions will hurt politically no matter what talking points you will post till you get the last word. That was the most popular issue that led to the wave in the House races last November

It(ACA) was unpopular initially but not in 2019 once many benefited by the PEC provision

 

[UCFWayne]

scrapping pre existing conditions will hurt politically no matter what talking points you will post till you get the last word. That was the most popular issue that led to the wave in the House races last November

It(ACA) was unpopular initially but not in 2019 once many benefited by the PEC provision

maybe trump can get congress to make just that part a law while the rest it totally scrapped. we can call it trumpcare.

 

[UCFKnight85]

scrapping pre existing conditions will hurt politically no matter what talking points you will post till you get the last word. That was the most popular issue that led to the wave in the House races last November

It(ACA) was unpopular initially but not in 2019 once many benefited by the PEC provision

The fake news Russia collusion story propped up by Democrats also helped last November...……..

Maybe it's simply up to Congress to pass a revised bill that isn't deem unconstitutional?

 

[Poolside Knight]

Healthcare was at 80% according to Gallup and the #1 issue for the recent midterm
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-healthcare-economy-immigration.aspx

 

[DaShuckster]

Healthcare was at 80% according to Gallup and the #1 issue for the recent midterm

scrapping pre existing conditions will hurt politically no matter what talking points you will post till you get the last word.

It was the absolute height of hypocrisy during the mid-term elections to see that the same Republican politicians who had been railing against the ACA for years and who'd been trying unsuccessfully to repeal it suddenly act like they were their voters biggest champion when it came to protecting pre-existing condition coverage.

But I guess if voters bought that Mexico was going to pay for a damn boarder wall, anything is possible.

 

[UCFKnight85]

It was the absolute height of hypocrisy during the mid-term elections to see that same Republican politicians who had been railing against the ACA for years and who'd been trying unsuccessfully to repeal it suddenly act like they were their voters biggest champion when it came to protecting pre-existing condition coverage.

But I guess if voters bought that Mexico was going to pay for a damn boarder wall, anything is possible.

The ACA is largely a shitty, overly burdensome law that should go. I also think that covering pre-existing conditions is a good thing but needs to be re-worked within a much better law.

See how that works? It's possible to believe both; people with brains that can comprehend basic things are capable of this.

Also, just a reminder that the basis for passing the ACA won Obama "Lie of the Year". Surely the 2019 "Lie of the Year" has to go to liberals and the media for deliberately pushing the collusion lie with no evidence and trying to destroy an elected President by conspiracy and bullshit.

 

[DaShuckster]

The ACA is largely a shitty, overly burdensome law that should go. I also think that covering pre-existing conditions is a good thing but needs to be re-worked within a much better law.

See how that works? It's possible to believe both...

Funny, when the ACA was being crafted, where were the Congressional Republicans with efforts to make the proposed legislation a better law?

The notion at the time was, 'yes, we need something like the ACA but I'll be damned if I'm going to work with those libs to give Obama a political victory!'

That's how we got to where we are today.

 

[mach3ucf]

I can gift the election to the Democrats..

Easy, stop talking about Trump..
Start talking about issues, and what you will actually be putting into effect if you win..

Everytime you attack Trump, I just feel like you are too weak to run off of a raise in taxes.. Be proud to kill off some jobs.. Be proud to make unemployment 5 to 6 %..

Sadly, I am one of the few that already know the recession is here, folks.. Economics and Stats, are not fake news.. & Numbers do not lie.. I would say 6 months to a year from today, sadly things will not be as good as they are today..

 

[mach3ucf]

Healthcare for All, is a good idea, just be happy to announce the loss of all Insurance jobs, that is almost 3 million jobs lost, there..

But they are apart of the problem.. Health Insurance should not be able to refuse to pay for things you need..

IE any of you paying insurance for XYZ years.. and then you actually get sick, Dr. says get test ABC, and that test cost $4,000.. They should pay for it.. Why else are we paying for insurance, except to be screwed over in our later years. If the Dr. orders it, it should be done, it is their profession to examine our health and what we need, not some person behind a desk looking over our #'s for an Insurance Company..

But there are many reforms needed.. And it is gonna be done wrong, because too much $$ influence politicians who make the rules, and Big Pharma ain't gonna let the $$$$$$$ go away..

Too many hands in the Health jar..

My ideas are simple.. Take back the health from insurance & give it to those actual Dr's that took the oath to save lives..

Healthcare is gonna be a huge problem.. and not an easy solution..

But we need conversation, not who has a bigger you know what in DC that both parties will play.. ....... Dirty minds, I meant Deficit!! Different D word!

 

[UCFKnight85]

Funny, when the ACA was being crafted, where were the Congressional Republicans with efforts to make the proposed legislation a better law?

The notion at the time was, 'yes, we need something like the ACA but I'll be damned if I'm going to work with those libs to give Obama a political victory!'

That's how we got to where we are today.

Yes, how dare they not offer amendments to a law that was being sold on a lie!

The f'ing Democratic Speaker of the House didn't even know what was in this monstrosity of a bill. We have to pass it to find out what's in it!

How were Republicans supposed to know when they were largely kept out of the process?

 

[beelit47]

View embedded media

If Trump really scraps pre existing conditions he is giving the other side a political gift.

Some of the idiot mouth breathers in lower income brackets that didn’t know Obamacare and ACA are the same thing now rely on it and like it

Since most of them now have jobs they can simply get something better from their employer.

 

[beelit47]

Healthcare for All, is a good idea, just be happy to announce the loss of all Insurance jobs, that is almost 3 million jobs lost, there..

But they are apart of the problem.. Health Insurance should not be able to refuse to pay for things you need..

IE any of you paying insurance for XYZ years.. and then you actually get sick, Dr. says get test ABC, and that test cost $4,000.. They should pay for it.. Why else are we paying for insurance, except to be screwed over in our later years. If the Dr. orders it, it should be done, it is their profession to examine our health and what we need, not some person behind a desk looking over our #'s for an Insurance Company..

But there are many reforms needed.. And it is gonna be done wrong, because too much $$ influence politicians who make the rules, and Big Pharma ain't gonna let the $$$$$$$ go away..

Too many hands in the Health jar..

My ideas are simple.. Take back the health from insurance & give it to those actual Dr's that took the oath to save lives..

Healthcare is gonna be a huge problem.. and not an easy solution..

But we need conversation, not who has a bigger you know what in DC that both parties will play.. ....... Dirty minds, I meant Deficit!! Different D word!

Health isnt something by its very nature that is insurable. When you insure property, the losses of a few people can easily be subsidized by the many who dont have a loss. With health, everyone will get sick and its impossible for premiums to keep pace. This is why insurers have to compete for insureds by expanding coverage options or creating discounts for annual screenings lr tobacco cessation.

The ACA killed conpetition by essentially socializing everyones coverages and what insurers must cover, which has led to massive amounts of adverse selection and is the main reason insurers have left some states and raised premiums 250% in others. These are the facts fried chicken, money milton, and ninja love to ignore but the facts are facts.

So i agree there needs to be conversation instead of calling people “shitty” because their facts dispute your feelings. I think the conversation should start with tort reform and limit the amount lawyers can sue doctors for malpractice when in many of these cases doctors are simply trying to assist a patient with a new drug after all other options were exhausted.

 

[Cubs79]

Since most of them now have jobs they can simply get something better from their employer.

Not all employer provided insurance is good coverage, especially pre-ACA days. The ACA had certain guidelines that employers had to meet, but if the ACA is gone, those guidelines are also going to be gone.

 

[UCFWayne]

Not all employer provided insurance is good coverage, especially pre-ACA days. The ACA had certain guidelines that employers had to meet, but if the ACA is gone, those guidelines are also going to be gone.

before the aca my employer offered like 5 different options and after it went down to 2. on top of that it nearly doubled over night and i got less coverage than before.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Not all employer provided insurance is good coverage, especially pre-ACA days. The ACA had certain guidelines that employers had to meet, but if the ACA is gone, those guidelines are also going to be gone.

Sure, and now some jobs and small businesses are gone, since they had to meet these arbitrary guidelines and couldn't. It's been real fun for small business owners who have had to hire people just to comply with ACA regulations at the expense of hiring more workers or expanding operations.

 

[Cubs79]

before the aca my employer offered like 5 different options and after it went down to 2. on top of that it nearly doubled over night and i got less coverage than before.

Your employer might have, but not everyone works for your company. Some employers provide good benefits, others don't. The whole healthcare discussions and debates didn't come out of a vacuum. Pre-ACA employers offered insurance as a benefit, not as a requirement. It was (and still is) an issue because a lot of people in this country simply (couldnt) cant afford adequate insurance. The ACA has its issues for sure, don't get me wrong. But also consider, most of the states where insurance prices went up and companies left the exchanges, were states where the state governments also rejected the Medicaid expansion, which was a major part of the ACA.

 

[Cubs79]

Sure, and now some jobs and small businesses are gone, since they had to meet these arbitrary guidelines and couldn't. It's been real fun for small business owners who have had to hire people just to comply with ACA regulations at the expense of hiring more workers or expanding operations.

I wouldn't tie healthcare to employment period, so I don't really disagree with you on this to a degree. Although I don't really get what you mean small business had to hire people just to comply with ACA regulations. IF it is truly a small business it seems that could have been done pretty easily by people who already handle HR and/or taxes. But, the ACA also provided a lot of help to a lot of people. If the GOP wants to get rid of the ACA then by all means, I just want to know what their plan is, which of course we haven't seen anything resembling a plan from them.

 

[UCFWayne]

I wouldn't tie healthcare to employment period, so I don't really disagree with you on this to a degree. Although I don't really get what you mean small business had to hire people just to comply with ACA regulations. IF it is truly a small business it seems that could have been done pretty easily by people who already handle HR and/or taxes. But, the ACA also provided a lot of help to a lot of people. If the GOP wants to get rid of the ACA then by all means, I just want to know what their plan is, which of course we haven't seen anything resembling a plan from them.

perhaps gov shouldnt be involved in healthcare in the first place.

 

[Cubs79]

perhaps gov shouldnt be involved in healthcare in the first place.

Obviously you are welcome to your opinion, but if that is the case then just expect to keep paying more and more for insurance.

 

[beelit47]

perhaps gov shouldnt be involved in healthcare in the first place.

Bingo. Capitalism works in this industry too. Find you a company that pays claims and offers better options for best cost or move on. Companies will respond to compete for your business. If you’re high risk (uninsurable) you can get coverage through the high risk pool provided by the state so insurers share that risk equally.

 

[UCFWayne]

Obviously you are welcome to your opinion, but if that is the case then just expect to keep paying more and more for insurance.

except for that part where the aca was implemented(hint the gov got more involved in healthcare) and my prices doubled.

please feel free to explain how my prices went down because those mental gynmastics would be entertaining as hell.

 

[Cubs79]

except for that part where the aca was implemented(hint the gov got more involved in healthcare) and my prices doubled.

please feel free to explain how my prices went down because those mental gynmastics would be entertaining as hell.

I am not sure where you think I said your prices went down, I didn't remotely say that. I obviously don't know you or your situation to comment about your health insurance premiums.

I am saying prices will continue to go up. The thing that people tend to forget, is that prices were going up before the ACA as well. You say your prices doubled because of the ACA, but that doesn't consider that without the ACA, your prices still would have gone up. How much would they have gone up? We don't know for sure, but the rising cost of insurance was the reason this was a debate in the first place. I also think people have this thought that if we repeal the ACA that prices will drop back to pre-ACA levels, which will absolutely not happen.

And I don't know where you live, but if it is Florida, then you live in a state that rejected the Medicaid expansion. The Medicaid expansion was a part of the ACA. States that rejected it aren't fully using the ACA, and their premiums have increased at a higher pace on average than states that didn't reject the expansion.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I wouldn't tie healthcare to employment period, so I don't really disagree with you on this to a degree. Although I don't really get what you mean small business had to hire people just to comply with ACA regulations. IF it is truly a small business it seems that could have been done pretty easily by people who already handle HR and/or taxes. But, the ACA also provided a lot of help to a lot of people. If the GOP wants to get rid of the ACA then by all means, I just want to know what their plan is, which of course we haven't seen anything resembling a plan from them.

No offense but it doesn't seem like you know or understand small business in the least. HR and/or taxes within a small business is usually done by software that the Manager or Owner handles, and taxes are often also done by software or shopped out to a CPA. There is no HR department hanging around to handle all of this for them.

So, it's really not feasible to think that a Manager using quickbooks or W2 Mate to handle payroll is suddenly going to know how to sift through hundreds of pages of new regulations and understand how to be in compliance with those.

 

[Cubs79]

No offense but it doesn't seem like you know or understand small business in the least. HR and/or taxes within a small business is usually done by software that the Manager or Owner handles, and taxes are often also done by software or shopped out to a CPA. There is no HR department hanging around to handle all of this for them.

So, it's really not feasible to think that a Manager using quickbooks or W2 Mate to handle payroll is suddenly going to know how to sift through hundreds of pages of new regulations and understand how to be in compliance with those.

My parents ran a small business and did all the HR stuff by themselves, so I must certainly know how small business work. I didn't say small businesses have an HR department, I said "by people who already handle HR and/or taxes". Just because you don't have an HR dept doesn't mean there aren't HR functions that someone has to do. Most small business most certainly didn't need to specifically hire people to who specialize in the ACA. It wasn't that difficult of a process.

 

[UCFWayne]

I am not sure where you think I said your prices went down, I didn't remotely say that. I obviously don't know you or your situation to comment about your health insurance premiums.

I am saying prices will continue to go up. The thing that people tend to forget, is that prices were going up before the ACA as well. You say your prices doubled because of the ACA, but that doesn't consider that without the ACA, your prices still would have gone up. How much would they have gone up? We don't know for sure, but the rising cost of insurance was the reason this was a debate in the first place. I also think people have this thought that if we repeal the ACA that prices will drop back to pre-ACA levels, which will absolutely not happen.

And I don't know where you live, but if it is Florida, then you live in a state that rejected the Medicaid expansion. The Medicaid expansion was a part of the ACA. States that rejected it aren't fully using the ACA, and their premiums have increased at a higher pace on average than states that didn't reject the expansion.

you inferred that my prices would go up if the gov go out of healthcare all together like what i want to see. i provided you with an example that happened to millions of people across this country when the gov just recently got more involved in healthcare like you just inferred. but you insist that prices would somehow go down? you are right, we should just completely forget recent history because next time theyll get it right...

im saying that the less gov is involved prices will go down. price for college has gone up incredibly because gov got involved in the loans.
everyone on both sides complains about the va. we keep throwing more money at it, where are the results?
most people would agree that private school is better than public school. we throw massive amounts of money at public education. why is private better?
the people that brought you the dmv are the same people that would run healthcare. that sounds good to me.*
im sure wed never see routine operations delayed because of spikes in the flu and shortages of beds and other supplies. oh that happened in the uk? that couldnt possibly happen here.*
im sure we wouldnt see long wait times for operations like they are seeing up in canada.*

 

[Cubs79]

you inferred that my prices would go up if the gov go out of healthcare all together like what i want to see. i provided you with an example that happened to millions of people across this country when the gov just recently got more involved in healthcare like you just inferred. but you insist that prices would somehow go down? you are right, we should just completely forget recent history because next time theyll get it right...

im saying that the less gov is involved prices will go down. price for college has gone up incredibly because gov got involved in the loans.
everyone on both sides complains about the va. we keep throwing more money at it, where are the results?
most people would agree that private school is better than public school. we throw massive amounts of money at public education. why is private better?
the people that brought you the dmv are the same people that would run healthcare. that sounds good to me.*
im sure wed never see routine operations delayed because of spikes in the flu and shortages of beds and other supplies. oh that happened in the uk? that couldnt possibly happen here.*
im sure we wouldnt see long wait times for operations like they are seeing up in canada.*

Prices had been going up for years prior to the ACA, so yes, I most certainly believe your prices would have continued to go up. You think if the ACA wasn't implemented prices would have stalled or began going down? If so, why do you think that? The reason healthcare became a major issue, is precisely because it was becoming unaffordable for a lot of people.

And prices became more affordable for millions across the country after the ACA too. The results weren't the same for everyone. I get some people got screwed, and I think the ACA could certainly be much better. But again, I keep going back to this point that a lot of states simply rejected parts of the ACA that would have helped control their prices, and those are the states where people tended to get screwed over the most. State legislatures and governors certainly have a good part of the blame for a lot of prices going up in certain places.


https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878

There is a chart on this page showing the yearly prices of premiums since 1960. Premiums have gone up every single year. The ACA didn't force premiums to go up. They were going up anyway and had been for 5 decades.

 

[UCFWayne]

Prices had been going up for years prior to the ACA, so yes, I most certainly believe your prices would have continued to go up. You think if the ACA wasn't implemented prices would have stalled or began going down? If so, why do you think that?

And prices became more affordable for millions across the country after the ACA too. The results weren't the same for everyone. I get some people got screwed, and I think the ACA could certainly be much better. But again, I keep going back to this point that a lot of states simply rejected parts of the ACA that would have helped control their prices, and those are the states where people tended to get screwed over the most. State legislatures and governors are at fault for a lot of prices going up.


https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878

There is a chart on this page showing the yearly prices of premiums since 1960. Premiums have gone up every single year. The ACA didn't force premiums to go up. They were going up anyway and had been for 5 decades.

why do i think prices would go down? lasik

lasik has been around for around 25 years. in that time span, the procedure has not only gotten better, but the cost per eye has dropped significantly. so more people can get the procedure, its safer than ever, and the price has gone down.

at no point was insurance or the gov involved in lasik.

if the aca didnt for the premiums to go up, why did mine almost double in 1 year?

question, when you need a package delivered quickly, who do you trust more; usps, fedex, ups, or another?

 

[Cubs79]

why do i think prices would go down? lasik

lasik has been around for around 25 years. in that time span, the procedure has not only gotten better, but the cost per eye has dropped significantly. so more people can get the procedure, its safer than ever, and the price has gone down.

at no point was insurance or the gov involved in lasik.

if the aca didnt for the premiums to go up, why did mine almost double in 1 year?

question, when you need a package delivered quickly, who do you trust more; usps, fedex, ups, or another?

Lasik is also an elective surgery. If the cost is too high, people would simply stick with contacts or glasses. People don't have that luxury when it comes to cancer treatment, heart impairments, etc etc. In saying that, there was government research involved with lasik. Laser technology in general was researched by the government and in universities. Government grants are often times involved in research involving new technologies.

Again, I don't know enough about your situation to know why your insurance doubled. Anecdotal points arent really good arguments. Your insurance went up, others went down, others stayed about the same, that is just the reality. Premiums on average didn't go up at a higher pace than they had prior to the ACA.

I don't really have a preference when who delivers my packages. I have never really had issues with the USPS if that is what you are getting at.

 

[fried-chicken]

I know Medicare for all seems like a huge undertaking, it is. That doesn't mean it can't be done. Imagine when politicians were discussing all of our functions of government they probably all seemed like too much to take on.

We put about 50 million kids into school for free every day in America. Imagine how difficult it seemed to implement that. People's taxes went up, businesses lost child labor.

Workers used to work 80-100 hours per week and we told businesses you can now only work them 40 when we passed the FSLA. Imagine how much businesses would complain about that today.

We made it so if a worker breaks his leg in your factory not only can you not just fire him and kick him to the curb, you need to pay for his surgeries and hold his job while paying him for a time period. Imagine businesses today if faced with that change.

One day we'll look back at this time and think how cruel it was and we'll be glad we didn't back down from the challenge that we have faced countless times in our history and improved the lives of our citizens each and every time.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I know Medicare for all seems like a huge undertaking, it is. That doesn't mean it can't be done. Imagine when politicians were discussing all of our functions of government they probably all seemed like too much to take on.

We put about 50 million kids into school for free every day in America. Imagine how difficult it seemed to implement that. People's taxes went up, businesses lost child labor.

Workers used to work 80-100 hours per week and we told businesses you can now only work them 40 when we passed the FSLA. Imagine how much businesses would complain about that today.

We made it so if a worker breaks his leg in your factory not only can you not just fire him and kick him to the curb, you need to pay for his surgeries and hold his job while paying him for a time period. Imagine businesses today if faced with that change.

One day we'll look back at this time and think how cruel it was and we'll be glad we didn't back down from the challenge that we have faced countless times in our history and improved the lives of our citizens each and every time.

lol this is all hilarious deflection away from the fact that Medicare for All is not only a terrible idea at the Federal level, but also totally unfeasible and way too expensive.

I don't need to even argue why. I'm proven right every time some socialist pitches MFA but refused to state 1) the cost and 2) how we'll pay for MFA while at the same time refusing to admit or assess the cost.

Every study on MFA has stated that it will cost, at minimum, $3.5 - $4 Trillion in new spending every year. Eventually inflating to $5 Trillion or more - per YEAR.

Tell me this - if MFA for all is such a "can't miss" idea, and is such a slam dunk policy, why the hell haven't blue states already done it? Why is it that Vermont, CA, WA, NY all have politicians that want to do this Federally but live in states that have deemed it unfeasible and rejected doing it at the state level?

I guess states like CA that are run exclusively by liberals can be excused for finding MFA to not be cost effective, but somehow - with magic - we're going to make it totally feasible at the national level.

Do you see the level of bullshit and unicorn type false hope you deal in, every time you tell us that MFA is such a great idea?

 

[fried-chicken]

lol this is all hilarious deflection away from the fact that Medicare for All is not only a terrible idea at the Federal level, but also totally unfeasible and way too expensive.

I don't need to even argue why. I'm proven right every time some socialist pitches MFA but refused to state 1) the cost and 2) how we'll pay for MFA while at the same time refusing to admit or assess the cost.

Every study on MFA has stated that it will cost, at minimum, $3.5 - $4 Trillion in new spending every year. Eventually inflating to $5 Trillion or more - per YEAR.

Tell me this - if MFA for all is such a "can't miss" idea, and is such a slam dunk policy, why the hell haven't blue states already done it? Why is it that Vermont, CA, WA, NY all have politicians that want to do this Federally but live in states that have deemed it unfeasible and rejected doing it at the state level?

I guess states like CA that are run exclusively by liberals can be excused for finding MFA to not be cost effective, but somehow - with magic - we're going to make it totally feasible at the national level.

Do you see the level of bullshit and unicorn type false hope you deal in, every time you tell us that MFA is such a great idea?

Americans already spend 3.5 Trillion on healthcare each year. What's the problem with a budget of 2.5 - 3 trillion?

 

[fried-chicken]

At worst Medicare for all is slightly more expensive per American at best it's slightly less expensive.

The advantage that it has is that it would protect everyone and control prices.

 

[UCFWayne]

Lasik is also an elective surgery. If the cost is too high, people would simply stick with contacts or glasses. People don't have that luxury when it comes to cancer treatment, heart impairments, etc etc. In saying that, there was government research involved with lasik. Laser technology in general was researched by the government and in universities. Government grants are often times involved in research involving new technologies.

Again, I don't know enough about your situation to know why your insurance doubled. Anecdotal points arent really good arguments. Your insurance went up, others went down, others stayed about the same, that is just the reality. Premiums on average didn't go up at a higher pace than they had prior to the ACA.

I don't really have a preference when who delivers my packages. I have never really had issues with the USPS if that is what you are getting at.

good idea, take a solid example of insurance and gov not being involved at all in a procedure and throwing it completely out the window. it definitely hurts anyones claim that we need more gov involvement.

the average person saw their premiums go up and by a good margin. it rose more than the inflation of medical coverage you were claiming. in 2019 it is extremely hard to find these numbers, google makes it next to impossible.*

usps works ok but it has never been great. fedex/ups increased the competition and made package delivery better. i mean who doesnt like tracking numbers? i mean 2 day or even single day delivering is pretty awesome. im sure the usps wouldve eventually rolled that out if they werent forced to keep up with fedex/ups.

taxation and killing people are really the only things that gov does better than the private sector. then again, the mafia taxed people and turned a profit, ive never known our gov to turn a profit...

 

[Cubs79]

good idea, take a solid example of insurance and gov not being involved at all in a procedure and throwing it completely out the window. it definitely hurts anyones claim that we need more gov involvement.

the average person saw their premiums go up and by a good margin. it rose more than the inflation of medical coverage you were claiming. in 2019 it is extremely hard to find these numbers, google makes it next to impossible.*

usps works ok but it has never been great. fedex/ups increased the competition and made package delivery better. i mean who doesnt like tracking numbers? i mean 2 day or even single day delivering is pretty awesome. im sure the usps wouldve eventually rolled that out if they werent forced to keep up with fedex/ups.

taxation and killing people are really the only things that gov does better than the private sector. then again, the mafia taxed people and turned a profit, ive never known our gov to turn a profit...

First off, government funded research was most certainly behind a lot of the technology that lasik uses, yet you keep acting like it wasn't. Secondly, Lasik is also a part of a lot of insurance plans now, so I don't know how you can say insurance isn't involved at all with lasik. Regardless, you keep bringing up lasik but I have pointed out to you that insurance premiums have been going up for 5 decades, and you have yet to even approach that point.

Government isn't designed to be for profit. The private sector has also done a lot of terrible things, so let's not make the private sector out to be some sort perfect creation.

 

[sk8knight]

First off, government funded research was most certainly behind a lot of the technology that lasik uses, yet you keep acting like it wasn't. Secondly, Lasik is also a part of a lot of insurance plans now, so I don't know how you can say insurance isn't involved at all with lasik. Regardless, you keep bringing up lasik but I have pointed out to you that insurance premiums have been going up for 5 decades, and you have yet to even approach that point.

Government isn't designed to be for profit. The private sector has also done a lot of terrible things, so let's know make the private sector out to be some sort perfect creation.

Government funding research to meet the needs of the future where there is no specific demand identified is one thing. The government taking over the production role is another. Government acts like it has unlimited resources, has no incentives to efficiency or profit, and has way too much bureaucracy in place that can not be moved. Let's keep Government where it belongs.

 

[fried-chicken]

First off, government funded research was most certainly behind a lot of the technology that lasik uses, yet you keep acting like it wasn't. Secondly, Lasik is also a part of a lot of insurance plans now, so I don't know how you can say insurance isn't involved at all with lasik. Regardless, you keep bringing up lasik but I have pointed out to you that insurance premiums have been going up for 5 decades, and you have yet to even approach that point.

Government isn't designed to be for profit. The private sector has also done a lot of terrible things, so let's know make the private sector out to be some sort perfect creation.

The private sector would work you 80 hours a week, fire woman who left for maternity leave, fire people who got sick, not pay you for travel time discriminate, and abuse child labor if every single one of those things didn't have a law preventing it. The laws exist for a reason, because the private sector is not altruistic. Insurance companies exist to make money and if they can get out of paying a claim they will. It's the business model.

 

[Cubs79]

The private sector would work you 80 hours a week, fire woman who left for maternity leave, fire people who got sick, not pay you for travel time discriminate, and abuse child labor if every single one of those things didn't have a law preventing it. The laws exist for a reason, because the private sector is not altruistic. Insurance companies exist to make money and if they can get out of paying a claim they will. It's the business model.

Not to mention the private sector has sold products that cause cancer, they pollute the air and water, knowingly sell defective products with safety issues, etc etc.

Plus, remember in 2008 when the private sector almost collapsed in on itself? Weird how it was the government that had to bail them out, seeing as the private sector is so much better at things.

 

[Cubs79]

Government funding research to meet the needs of the future where there is no specific demand identified is one thing. The government taking over the production role is another. Government acts like it has unlimited resources, has no incentives to efficiency or profit, and has way too much bureaucracy in place that can not be moved. Let's keep Government where it belongs.

I don't know what this is in regards to. The ACA was still being ran by private insurance companies (other than the medicaid expansion). The government didn't take over the production.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Americans already spend 3.5 Trillion on healthcare each year. What's the problem with a budget of 2.5 - 3 trillion?

lolololololololol at the idea that private sector consumption can just be nationalized and rolled into a government program.



AGAIN - if it's this simple, why haven't deep blue liberal states already done this at the State level??????????