Maybe because 60 million is nothing compared to the future costs of that clusterfuck. Maybe because 60 million spent to prevent an utter catastrophe is money well spent. Maybe because you are full of shit.
And if there are none, will you admit it? What would put in its place? Or is "do nothing" your solution?
The new health care law is going to work, GD. It's not going to be perfect but it is going to be better than what we had....significantly better. But that's just why you are bitching about it, right?
You keep bitching and offer no solution in the place of the ACA. It's a market based solution that is going to bring more affordable health care to more people and ultimately lower the cost of health care overall. What are you going to do when more states release their insurance information and the rates are lower? Must be some sort of liberal plot to control you!
It's been discussed with you before. Both on these pages and at TSM. I and others gave many other solutions that aren't 'doing nothing'. So quit lying.
It's a market based solution
Ha! When your own side starts calling it a good first step towards socialized medicine you've lost the lie that it's 'market based'. If it's 'market based' it's a very 'third position' version of state control of private business....
Well, we already have state control of health care for those over 65. Have the internment camps been opened and if so, how did I miss it? Medicare has been very successful and is quite popular. Funny, you hear crickets from the Tea Party about Medicare. Why is that?
Anyhoo, just because some liberal somewhere says something that is posted on a right wing blog, doesn't mean it's going to happen (see: appeal to fear, misleading vividness). Further, you are doing the usual distort and redirect in setting up what could be "bad."
I'd like to hear what your solution is for health care in this country. Is that plan in the same place as you plan to deal with gun violence?:)
Medicare has been very successful and is quite popular.
From my wife, a RN:
If medicare was even approaching successful then you wouldn't have a large number of doctors refusing to accept medicare patients or limiting the number of medicare patients they will accept and you wouldn't have retirees spending half their ss checks on medicare supplements and rx's.
Would you say that your use of your wife as an expert adheres to the standards set out in the above link. Basically what I am asking here is this: does she hold the same ideology that you do? If so, she is biased and that needs to be taken into account.
Further, one account does not evidence make. Present some unbiased data and perhaps we can have a better discussion. That means you are going to have to knock off the confirmation bias.
You are defending this legislation that: A minority wanted, nobody read let alone understood, has been propped up and sold with lies and deception, has evidence of unworkable features stacking up daily, has a majority who want it repealed, has exploding cost projections, and basically is about the worst legislation ever introduced in America and you cling to ' it will be successful'?!
Even if you believe that govt should control healthcare costs via legislation, this monstrosity is not it. There is not any positive benefit that excused the passing of this legislation that has not been debunked as lies or deception. Even if you can find one, the negatives FAR outweigh the positives.
6Kings, it hasn't been implemented yet so your statement is nothing but mere conjecture.
GD, how many times have I said "fuck you" to you? And how many times have you said that to me? I think the issue of who is more mature and rational has now been settled.
6Kings, it hasn't been implemented yet so your statement is nothing but mere conjecture.
More sycophantic BS. Ramifications have already started in anticipation of said legislation. yeah, already there are costs being piled on businesses and people through reduced hours, rate hikes, etc. This is all documented. Your ideological obstinance is sickening.
Fuck you you shit-weasel. You just gave me at least a partial definition of success for PPACA - something you refused to do when asked directly for it.
Oh yeah? Then you can start by addressing the statements and arguments made - not the personal attacks and amateur psychology.
And if you insist on claiming a particular statement is some sort of logical fallacy you should SUPPORT that assertion with an argument of how said statement is a fallacy - NOT a copy, paste and run.....
MYTH FOUR: DOCTORS WILL NOT ACCEPT MEDICARE BECAUSE OF ALL THESE CUTS
Facts: Most Medicare patients do not have trouble finding doctors who will see them, but there is growing concern about access to primary care physicians.
This issue is monitored closely by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent Congressional agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare. The agency's most recent annual survey of Medicare patients found that just 2 percent of beneficiaries had problems of any kind finding a new primary care doctor willing to accept Medicare - the same percentage of patients aged 50-64 with private insurance who report problems.
Likewise, just 2.1 percent report trouble of any kind finding specialists willing to accept Medicare, compared with 2.3 percent for patients with private insurance.
This information doesn't really jibe with the information you provided from the New York Times (which I find hilarious that you now view as an authority). Your other link is five years old and about Texas. Got anything more current or for the whole country? Like this?
I'll add in this to the "ifs" paragraph...If you are someone who has a pathological hate for government programs and want them to fail, any whiff of problems mean the program is not a success and is spiraling down a boiling pit of sewage (see: confirmation bias).
What the Journal didn’t report is that, per CMS, the number of physicians who agreed to accept Medicare patients continues to grow year-over-year, from 705,568 in 2012 to 735,041 in 2013.
And other providers aren’t turning down Medicare, either. The number of nurse practitioners participating in the program has only gone up, Jan Towers of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners told California Healthline.
Hmm...looks like you left that little tidbit out...I wonder why:)
The truth is that over 90% of doctors accept Medicare, and probably 99.9% of hospitals accept Medicare patients. A while ago I wrote about a study that was done on this subject back in 2011.
From one of your own links above..
"Our recent survey showed very few seniors have trouble finding a doctor will take Medicare," according to Tricia Neuman, the director of the Kaiser Family Foundation's program on Medicare policy
So, this...
If medicare was even approaching successful then you wouldn't have a large number of doctors refusing to accept medicare patients or limiting the number of medicare patients they will accept and you wouldn't have retirees spending half their ss checks on medicare supplements and rx's.
is a false statement that should have been fact checked more thoroughly.
BTW, what's with the weird TSM link to old comments? I thought those guys were all done with me. They voted me off. Why are they still obsessing about me?
NOT a copy, paste and run..
Are you saying you don't understand how your assertions are logical fallacies? It's pretty obvious and I really don't think you are that stupid. Likely, you are back to the game playing and dodging again:)
This information doesn't really jibe with the information you provided
That information does not refute what I provided. That information is reporting different criterion than what I provided. Apples/oranges.
New York Times (which I find hilarious that you now view as an authority). Your other link is five years old and about Texas. Got anything more current or for the whole country? Like this?
I did a google search for doctors not accepting medicare or some such. You can try it too. I didn't cherry pick, I gave you the first few links. There were 400,000 such results. I think you can find your own current reports.
continues to grow year-over-year, from 705,568 in 2012 to 735,041 in 2013
Numbers without context are meaningless. Is that 4% increase more or less than the increase in doctors during that same time frame?
Hmm...looks like you left that little tidbit out...I wonder why:)
Because it's not my argument you ninny.
is a false statement that should have been fact checked more thoroughly.
Is not false if you are comparing apples to apples, which you have not.
BTW, what's with the weird TSM link to old comments? I thought those guys were all done with me. They voted me off. Why are they still obsessing about me?
Is a link to a comment from four years ago? They are not still 'obsessing'.
Are you saying you don't understand how your assertions are logical fallacies? It's pretty obvious and I really don't think you are that stupid
No, I am not stupid. But you keep mislabeling things as fallacies that are no such thing. I ask you to explain how they are fallacies because - since you are wrong - you cannot actually do so.
Likely, you are back to the game playing and dodging again:)
Do you want me to start throwing out my opinion of why you say things? That would be fun too, but is just as irrelevant....
Are large numbers of doctors leaving Medicare or not? The data I presented says they are not. The data you presented looks like a google search fueled by confirmation bias. At least you admitted that you did that because what you are saying is misleading as my second link above demonstrates. So, what we have (again) is hasty generalization.
Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
In this case, sample S is a few doctors opting out of Medicare. Now, a "large number" of doctors are leaving. How many doctors still take Medicare, GD?
Regarding the link to TSM comments, I thought all of those old ones were lost. Is someone trying to recover them? Why?
Regarding the link to TSM comments, I thought all of those old ones were lost. Is someone trying to recover them? Why?
Why not?
Are large numbers of doctors leaving Medicare or not? The data I presented says they are not.
No, the data you presented DID NOT refute what I posted. You data says that there are doctors accepting medicare and that people generally don't have a problem finding a medicare doctor. That DOES NOT refute the point made.
Ah, we're back to the willful ignorance again. The Reuters piece had no effect on you, eh. The CJR data? The Arizonian? Your OWN link from PBS?
Very few seniors have trouble finding a doctor who will take Medicare. The numbers show that very few doctors refuse Medicare and the number who take them rose by nearly 30 K last year. These are the facts, GD, and your continued intransigence is proof positive of The Bubble.
Now we've changed it from "a large number of doctors opting out" to "doctors opting out." I won't dispute the latter. But that number is small and insignificant and in no way a measure of Medicare's success. If you want to measure the success of Medicare, let's see some critical analysis of the program. Perhaps something like this?
Well, you'd have to define what 'success' looks like, wouldn't you?
From your link:
Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage
Why wouldn't they be? Free shit makes people happy.
The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.
Sure, when you can tell the people who are billing you how much of that administrative work has to be borne by them and not you - your admin costs are sure to go down.
from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap
Don't you get mad about Wal-Mart 'forcing' it's suppliers to sell at a certain price? Yeah, I guess it's ok for the gov't to do it though huh? This is kind of the reason doctors are opting out of the thing.
In 2003, Medicare beneficiaries will spend an average of 23 percent of their income on health care!
Hey look! A confirmation of part of the original statement made.
the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful.
Well, there's your mistake. There is nothing competitive or free market about health care. And that is the problem.
"Free shit makes people happy" is a flat out lie. Not surprising, really. I won't hold my breath on a retraction in your failure to understand the concept of a payroll tax.
I'm all ears if you've found a way around inelastic demand. Otherwise, many healthcare markets won't distribute resources efficiently. It won't be free and it won't be competitive.
I won't hold my breath on a retraction in your failure to understand the concept of a payroll tax.
Oh, I understand it.....
Are the people getting medicare paying the tax when they are getting it? Or are young working people paying for old non working peoples health care?
I'm all ears if you've found a way around inelastic demand.
Everybody has been all ears for years waiting for you to come up with an explanation of how a market that is already been made inefficient by government intervention needs more government intervention to make it more efficient.
Oh, and also waiting for you to use the concept of inelastic demand properly.
It won't be free and it won't be competitive.
Apparently your class on economic didn't actually teach you any economics.....
Are the people getting medicare paying the tax when they are getting it? Or are young working people paying for old non working peoples health care?
A "winning the argument" question:)
True or False-People who get Medicare paid into it their entire lives. Therefore, they are not getting "free shit." Now if you want to bitch about Medicaid, then that's fine as far as "free shit" goes but I think that if we are going to be judged by what we do for "the least of these," the government doesn't have to be excluded from this...especially considering the mommy/daddy issues that the Right seems to have with it.
Oh, and also waiting for you to use the concept of inelastic demand properly.
This must be the part where I get all frustrated and shit because I've explained it a million times and you are just being a dick.
It's not my place to explain, GD. It's yours. Remember this?
43 comments:
Maybe because 60 million is nothing compared to the future costs of that clusterfuck. Maybe because 60 million spent to prevent an utter catastrophe is money well spent. Maybe because you are full of shit.
future costs of that clusterfuck. .
And if there are none, will you admit it? What would put in its place? Or is "do nothing" your solution?
The new health care law is going to work, GD. It's not going to be perfect but it is going to be better than what we had....significantly better. But that's just why you are bitching about it, right?
Mark, you've been asked and can not even define a metric for what 'working' would be. That makes any judgement you have laughable.
Right, I'm the one doing the avoiding....
You keep bitching and offer no solution in the place of the ACA. It's a market based solution that is going to bring more affordable health care to more people and ultimately lower the cost of health care overall. What are you going to do when more states release their insurance information and the rates are lower? Must be some sort of liberal plot to control you!
It's been discussed with you before. Both on these pages and at TSM. I and others gave many other solutions that aren't 'doing nothing'. So quit lying.
It's a market based solution
Ha! When your own side starts calling it a good first step towards socialized medicine you've lost the lie that it's 'market based'. If it's 'market based' it's a very 'third position' version of state control of private business....
Well, we already have state control of health care for those over 65. Have the internment camps been opened and if so, how did I miss it? Medicare has been very successful and is quite popular. Funny, you hear crickets from the Tea Party about Medicare. Why is that?
Anyhoo, just because some liberal somewhere says something that is posted on a right wing blog, doesn't mean it's going to happen (see: appeal to fear, misleading vividness).
Further, you are doing the usual distort and redirect in setting up what could be "bad."
I'd like to hear what your solution is for health care in this country. Is that plan in the same place as you plan to deal with gun violence?:)
You have heard it, but you wouldn't listen. Quite normal for you.
Medicare has been very successful and is quite popular.
From my wife, a RN:
If medicare was even approaching successful then you wouldn't have a large number of doctors refusing to accept medicare patients or limiting the number of medicare patients they will accept and you wouldn't have retirees spending half their ss checks on medicare supplements and rx's.
Right, I'm the one doing the avoiding....
Yay - you finally got that much right!
It's a market based solution that is going to bring more affordable health care to more people and ultimately lower the cost of health care overall.
Well that was quick.
Well, let's see, GD. First we have this...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Would you say that your use of your wife as an expert adheres to the standards set out in the above link. Basically what I am asking here is this: does she hold the same ideology that you do? If so, she is biased and that needs to be taken into account.
Further, one account does not evidence make. Present some unbiased data and perhaps we can have a better discussion. That means you are going to have to knock off the confirmation bias.
fuck you.
You think you can dismiss you own fucking bias and maybe do a damned google search once in a while?
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/august/06/third-of-medicaid-doctors-say-no-new-patients.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html?_r=0
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323971204578626151017241898.html
http://www.physicianspractice.com/blog/six-main-reasons-physicians-are-dropping-medicare-patients
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2013/06/11/what-to-do-if-your-doctor-wont-take-medicare/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june13/medicare_03-04.html
It's a market based solution that is going to bring more affordable health care to more people and ultimately lower the cost of health care overall.
So, you have some definition for success after all.
What will you say in 1 year or 5 (or will it take 20?) if such results have not appeared?
So, M, let me get this straight:
You are defending this legislation that:
A minority wanted, nobody read let alone understood, has been propped up and sold with lies and deception, has evidence of unworkable features stacking up daily, has a majority who want it repealed, has exploding cost projections, and basically is about the worst legislation ever introduced in America and you cling to ' it will be successful'?!
Even if you believe that govt should control healthcare costs via legislation, this monstrosity is not it. There is not any positive benefit that excused the passing of this legislation that has not been debunked as lies or deception. Even if you can find one, the negatives FAR outweigh the positives.
6Kings, it hasn't been implemented yet so your statement is nothing but mere conjecture.
GD, how many times have I said "fuck you" to you? And how many times have you said that to me? I think the issue of who is more mature and rational has now been settled.
Mark,
Just like the trite 'violence never solves anything' cliche - violence has solved many problems, and some people just need killin'.
Some people just need to be told to fuck off. If it's the appropriate response then it's the appropriate response.
The real question is why do you merit it so often?
it hasn't been implemented yet so your statement is nothing but mere conjecture.
That's pure unadulterated bullshit.
'If' that's the case then the EXACT same thing can be said of every so-called benefit of that same not implemented yet law.
So, every thing you think may be improved by Obamacare is nothing but mere conjecture?
Goose - gander.
The real question is why do you merit it so often?
I think it's because I was wearing a tight leather skirt and fishnet stockings. So, clearly I deserved it:)
6Kings, it hasn't been implemented yet so your statement is nothing but mere conjecture.
More sycophantic BS. Ramifications have already started in anticipation of said legislation. yeah, already there are costs being piled on businesses and people through reduced hours, rate hikes, etc. This is all documented. Your ideological obstinance is sickening.
Documented where? Unbiased sources, please. And, yes, you have to your assertions run by fact checkers.
When will you start demanding of yourself what you do of others?
When will you start demanding of yourself what you do of others?
You ask something he is utterly incapable of.
More dodging...not about me, guys, it's about you and supporting your assertions with unbiased evidence.
Fuck you you shit-weasel. You just gave me at least a partial definition of success for PPACA - something you refused to do when asked directly for it.
Take your childish behavior and choke on it.
And I mean that QUITE literally. If it is impossible for you to be an adult, then do the world a favor and remove yourself from it.
More dodging...not about me
Oh yeah? Then you can start by addressing the statements and arguments made - not the personal attacks and amateur psychology.
And if you insist on claiming a particular statement is some sort of logical fallacy you should SUPPORT that assertion with an argument of how said statement is a fallacy - NOT a copy, paste and run.....
Further, one account does not evidence make. Present some unbiased data and perhaps we can have a better discussion
Holy crap Mark, you were presented with this evidence FOUR YEARS AGO
Do things just go in one ear and out the other?
If it is impossible for you to be an adult
Fuck you you shit-weasel.
I don't think I need to add anything to that.
Regarding Medicare, let's dispel some myths right away because it seems we are suffering yet again from confirmation bias.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-column-miller-medicare-idUSBRE87E15N20120815
MYTH FOUR: DOCTORS WILL NOT ACCEPT MEDICARE BECAUSE OF ALL THESE CUTS
Facts: Most Medicare patients do not have trouble finding doctors who will see them, but there is growing concern about access to primary care physicians.
This issue is monitored closely by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent Congressional agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare. The agency's most recent annual survey of Medicare patients found that just 2 percent of beneficiaries had problems of any kind finding a new primary care doctor willing to accept Medicare - the same percentage of patients aged 50-64 with private insurance who report problems.
Likewise, just 2.1 percent report trouble of any kind finding specialists willing to accept Medicare, compared with 2.3 percent for patients with private insurance.
This information doesn't really jibe with the information you provided from the New York Times (which I find hilarious that you now view as an authority). Your other link is five years old and about Texas. Got anything more current or for the whole country? Like this?
http://www.cjr.org/the_second_opinion/how_many_doctors_still_take_medicare.php
I'll add in this to the "ifs" paragraph...If you are someone who has a pathological hate for government programs and want them to fail, any whiff of problems mean the program is not a success and is spiraling down a boiling pit of sewage (see: confirmation bias).
What the Journal didn’t report is that, per CMS, the number of physicians who agreed to accept Medicare patients continues to grow year-over-year, from 705,568 in 2012 to 735,041 in 2013.
And other providers aren’t turning down Medicare, either. The number of nurse practitioners participating in the program has only gone up, Jan Towers of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners told California Healthline.
Hmm...looks like you left that little tidbit out...I wonder why:)
Here's another link to chew over...
http://tucsoncitizen.com/medicare/2013/05/17/are-doctors-opting-out-of-medicare/
The truth is that over 90% of doctors accept Medicare, and probably 99.9% of hospitals accept Medicare patients. A while ago I wrote about a study that was done on this subject back in 2011.
From one of your own links above..
"Our recent survey showed very few seniors have trouble finding a doctor will take Medicare," according to Tricia Neuman, the director of the Kaiser Family Foundation's program on Medicare policy
So, this...
If medicare was even approaching successful then you wouldn't have a large number of doctors refusing to accept medicare patients or limiting the number of medicare patients they will accept and you wouldn't have retirees spending half their ss checks on medicare supplements and rx's.
is a false statement that should have been fact checked more thoroughly.
BTW, what's with the weird TSM link to old comments? I thought those guys were all done with me. They voted me off. Why are they still obsessing about me?
NOT a copy, paste and run..
Are you saying you don't understand how your assertions are logical fallacies? It's pretty obvious and I really don't think you are that stupid. Likely, you are back to the game playing and dodging again:)
This information doesn't really jibe with the information you provided
That information does not refute what I provided. That information is reporting different criterion than what I provided. Apples/oranges.
New York Times (which I find hilarious that you now view as an authority). Your other link is five years old and about Texas. Got anything more current or for the whole country? Like this?
I did a google search for doctors not accepting medicare or some such. You can try it too. I didn't cherry pick, I gave you the first few links. There were 400,000 such results. I think you can find your own current reports.
continues to grow year-over-year, from 705,568 in 2012 to 735,041 in 2013
Numbers without context are meaningless. Is that 4% increase more or less than the increase in doctors during that same time frame?
Hmm...looks like you left that little tidbit out...I wonder why:)
Because it's not my argument you ninny.
is a false statement that should have been fact checked more thoroughly.
Is not false if you are comparing apples to apples, which you have not.
BTW, what's with the weird TSM link to old comments? I thought those guys were all done with me. They voted me off. Why are they still obsessing about me?
Is a link to a comment from four years ago? They are not still 'obsessing'.
Are you saying you don't understand how your assertions are logical fallacies? It's pretty obvious and I really don't think you are that stupid
No, I am not stupid. But you keep mislabeling things as fallacies that are no such thing. I ask you to explain how they are fallacies because - since you are wrong - you cannot actually do so.
Likely, you are back to the game playing and dodging again:)
Do you want me to start throwing out my opinion of why you say things? That would be fun too, but is just as irrelevant....
I have little patience for childish dishonest ass-hats pretending to be oh so much more than they are.
Are large numbers of doctors leaving Medicare or not? The data I presented says they are not. The data you presented looks like a google search fueled by confirmation bias. At least you admitted that you did that because what you are saying is misleading as my second link above demonstrates. So, what we have (again) is hasty generalization.
Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
In this case, sample S is a few doctors opting out of Medicare. Now, a "large number" of doctors are leaving. How many doctors still take Medicare, GD?
Regarding the link to TSM comments, I thought all of those old ones were lost. Is someone trying to recover them? Why?
Regarding the link to TSM comments, I thought all of those old ones were lost. Is someone trying to recover them? Why?
Why not?
Are large numbers of doctors leaving Medicare or not? The data I presented says they are not.
No, the data you presented DID NOT refute what I posted. You data says that there are doctors accepting medicare and that people generally don't have a problem finding a medicare doctor. That DOES NOT refute the point made.
Are they or aren't they leaving Medicare in large numbers? Yes or no?
Well, since you have not presented any evidence to the contrary, I'd have to say yes.
Ah, we're back to the willful ignorance again. The Reuters piece had no effect on you, eh. The CJR data? The Arizonian? Your OWN link from PBS?
Very few seniors have trouble finding a doctor who will take Medicare. The numbers show that very few doctors refuse Medicare and the number who take them rose by nearly 30 K last year. These are the facts, GD, and your continued intransigence is proof positive of The Bubble.
You wouldn't know how a fact relates to your case if it smacked you in the ass.
Not having trouble finding a doctor can be true at the same time as doctors are opting out.
Lots of doctors still accepting medicare can be true at the same time as doctors are opting out.
These statements, being able to be true at the same time means they can not be used to refute the point.
The number of doctors accepting medicare rising is irrelevant without knowing the growth rate of doctors overall.
These are the facts Mark. If I am intransigent, it is only to utterly stupid and illogical vomit posing as 'fact'.
Now we've changed it from "a large number of doctors opting out" to "doctors opting out." I won't dispute the latter. But that number is small and insignificant and in no way a measure of Medicare's success. If you want to measure the success of Medicare, let's see some critical analysis of the program. Perhaps something like this?
http://m.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/Crossroads/06_13_03.html
Of course, you'd have to try to remove your pathological hatred of government in order to do that:)
If you want to measure the success
Well, you'd have to define what 'success' looks like, wouldn't you?
From your link:
Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage
Why wouldn't they be? Free shit makes people happy.
The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.
Sure, when you can tell the people who are billing you how much of that administrative work has to be borne by them and not you - your admin costs are sure to go down.
from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap
Don't you get mad about Wal-Mart 'forcing' it's suppliers to sell at a certain price? Yeah, I guess it's ok for the gov't to do it though huh? This is kind of the reason doctors are opting out of the thing.
In 2003, Medicare beneficiaries will spend an average of 23 percent of their income on health care!
Hey look! A confirmation of part of the original statement made.
the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful.
Well, there's your mistake. There is nothing competitive or free market about health care. And that is the problem.
From your link:
Now GD that's not fair, actually reading the links that M provides that don't support the point he is making.
"Free shit makes people happy" is a flat out lie. Not surprising, really. I won't hold my breath on a retraction in your failure to understand the concept of a payroll tax.
I'm all ears if you've found a way around inelastic demand. Otherwise, many healthcare markets won't distribute resources efficiently. It won't be free and it won't be competitive.
I won't hold my breath on a retraction in your failure to understand the concept of a payroll tax.
Oh, I understand it.....
Are the people getting medicare paying the tax when they are getting it? Or are young working people paying for old non working peoples health care?
I'm all ears if you've found a way around inelastic demand.
Everybody has been all ears for years waiting for you to come up with an explanation of how a market that is already been made inefficient by government intervention needs more government intervention to make it more efficient.
Oh, and also waiting for you to use the concept of inelastic demand properly.
It won't be free and it won't be competitive.
Apparently your class on economic didn't actually teach you any economics.....
Are the people getting medicare paying the tax when they are getting it? Or are young working people paying for old non working peoples health care?
A "winning the argument" question:)
True or False-People who get Medicare paid into it their entire lives. Therefore, they are not getting "free shit." Now if you want to bitch about Medicaid, then that's fine as far as "free shit" goes but I think that if we are going to be judged by what we do for "the least of these," the government doesn't have to be excluded from this...especially considering the mommy/daddy issues that the Right seems to have with it.
Oh, and also waiting for you to use the concept of inelastic demand properly.
This must be the part where I get all frustrated and shit because I've explained it a million times and you are just being a dick.
It's not my place to explain, GD. It's yours. Remember this?
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2013/08/american-medical-tourists-now-going-to.html
They charge more because they CAN. Get it now?
Hey, I wonder if that private European hospital has it's own government version of EMTLA.
They charge more because they HAVE to. Get it?
Post a Comment