The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 11    Average: 2.3/5]
94 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 2795
Rating: 2.3
Category: Misc
Date: 10/16/13 10:00 AM

94 Responses to How Ddoes Tthe Affordable Care Act Aaffect Yyou?

  1. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 10:01 am
    Link: How Ddoes Tthe Affordable Care Act Aaffect Yyou? - Not a political post. Sorry guys!
  2. Profile photo of collegebound
    collegebound Male 18-29
    3745 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 10:09 am
    "Not a political post. Sorry guys!"

    it will be...it will be...
  3. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 10:44 am
    So apparently the only people who don`t have health insurance are fat diabetics or people with chronic medical conditions who will suck all the life out of the system? Methinks this has a subtle political motive, especially with his 46% reference and phrasing like "I live off the government."

    Will the increase in sickos not be offset by the increase in younger, healthier people? This will remain to be seen, but this is far from a comprehensive, unbiased "math" video.
  4. Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 10:50 am
    You can`t cite truth, liberals hate it. The Affordable Health Care Act doesn`t impact those already living off of everyone else. It affects people that actually work for a living, like me and some of you here. SO, naturally those that are benefitting from this are happy as a clam, while our premiums go up.
  5. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 10:56 am
    One of the biggest shames of this century was to convince the public that economic understanding is so complex as to be beyond the capacity of the average man - nothing could be further from the truth.
  6. Profile photo of aliyahg1979
    aliyahg1979 Female 30-39
    254 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 11:43 am
    lol non-bias you say? but isn`t he a "contributor" on Fox and Friends? Anywho, I guess I`m going to be one of the 500lb diabetics with chronic medications up the yin-yang with the horrid Western diet that will now be accepted... except I`m 125lb, I exercise, eat a 95% raw organic vegetarian diet and the only thing I have an adverse reaction to is prescription medications. The insurance companies viewed me getting hit by a car while walking as a pre-existing condition. yay!! Oh and me and my family DO NOT belong to any welfare programs nor do we "mooch" off the government in any way, nor are we Liberals. As I recall, not too long ago there were a few statements made by Rush that "exercise is a Left wing agenda" and the "healthy people are the reason rates go up since they get hurt while exercising."

    Preventative care, healthy diet and exercise (walking, Tai Chi, basketball) are the key to a healthy life. There will be bone breaks, headac
  7. Profile photo of aliyahg1979
    aliyahg1979 Female 30-39
    254 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 11:46 am
    s and other ailments,but if they are found early and nipped in the bud, then the situation will most likely not progress. The wrinkles in this program will need to be ironed out, but how do we know this will fail is we do not try it?

    For flippin` sake, this has to be given a fair chance in order for this to even have a shot to function properly. If this does not work, then it does not work in a U.S. setting, but setting it up to fail is straight up sabotage.
  8. Profile photo of aliyahg1979
    aliyahg1979 Female 30-39
    254 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 11:48 am
    In the U.S. the insurance companies are FOR PROFIT agencies... they do not care about you living or dying, just about share holders and making money.

    I know a chiropractor who gets $5.03 per unit from the insurance companies who tell him to charge the patients for the rest. about 14 years ago he was getting $38.50 per unit, but in 2006 the IC dropped the payout by a few dollars every few months and in turn raised premiums.
    My husband`s health insurance has quintupled in the past 9 years with absolutely no decline in our health in any way. The deductible/copay went from $0/$5 per year, to $800/$65 per person.

    Sorry about the rant, but the system we`ve had in this country has been turning to pot for years, I am glad to see some sort of variance in hopes of health insurance regulations in relation to their "price gouging" in time of need.
  9. Profile photo of aliyahg1979
    aliyahg1979 Female 30-39
    254 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 11:59 am
    p.s. the United States has a circular economy, not a closed loop economy, plus it is ruled by monopolies and human consumption (supply/demand) and people who write the laws. PLUS this past recession has the been the FASTEST recession recovery in U.S. history!
  10. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 12:11 pm
    Already harming average Americans! The ACA is BAD FOR USA. 0-care (zero care).

    This guy does what Democrats and the MSM apparently could not be bothered to do: LOOK AT THE FACTS.

    Fact: Insurance Companies are DUMPING MILLIONS of cheap policies, and FORCING people to buy MORE EXPENSIVE ones.

    Fact: Millions of jobs will now be 29 hours per week, never more, because of the ACA. You`ll have to get TWO JOBS to get 40 hours... neither will get you healthcare.

    Fact: Insurance Companies will make BILLIONS MORE PROFITS because of the ACA, they LOVE IT!

    But Obama promised it would make things cheaper? The website ALONE cost $500,000,000 FFS...

    tl:dr?

    Costs will ALWAYS be passed down to the customer. The average American will end up paying more for "healthcare" than you used to: directly, indirectly or both!
  11. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 12:16 pm
    @aliyagh1979: You think the ACA will lower your rates? Insurance Companies will use ANY excuse to raise rates... the ACA makes it worse.

    The USA has "recovered" from the recession? NEWS TO ME! :-)

    There`s been lots of "short recessions" in the USA since 1900, just FYI...
  12. Profile photo of pmarren
    pmarren Male 40-49
    4575 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 12:21 pm
    aliyahg1979, I read your whole rant thinking "Jesus, she`s smart AND hot", sadly, that thought kept me from digesting a word you said.
  13. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 12:26 pm
    @aliyah

    p.s. the United States has a circular economy, not a closed loop economy
    I`m not sure what you are saying here; a closed-loop economy is a circular economy. I suspect you meant that the US is not a linear economy, but even so, there are plenty of arguments for both in most industries.

    plus it is ruled by monopolies and human consumption (supply/demand) and people who write the
    I cannot think of any monopolies (or oligarchies) right now that are not created by governments. I suppose an argument could be made for Microsoft or Google, but there are viable alternatives to each.

    PLUS this past recession has the been the FASTEST recession recovery in U.S. history!
    When did we get out of it? Also, the Depression of 1920-1921 lasted less than a 1.5 years. The rapid recovery is largely credited to Harding`s laissez-faire policies.

  14. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 12:42 pm
    @aliyah

    Please also note that when I say "laissez-faire" I mean it in every sense.

    Harding`s reaction to the Depression of 1920 was to cut government spending nearly in half, reduce the debt by one-third, and slashing tax rates for all income groups.

    Notice that this is starkly opposite to what was done in response to the Great Depression, which subsequently lasted ten times longer.
  15. Profile photo of collegebound
    collegebound Male 18-29
    3745 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    "the United States has a circular economy, not a closed loop economy"

    uhh...
  16. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 3:50 pm
    I suppose an argument could be made for Microsoft or Google

    Perhaps it`s important to stress that they are SUCCESSFUL monopolies, who properly earned their market share. By providing goods and services competitively, not by fiat or being able to comply with govt regulations.
  17. Profile photo of C_Frost
    C_Frost Male 30-39
    130 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm
    lies , do the math and use logic, the higher costs will be spread out over everbody
  18. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 5:36 pm
    Math also says that disabled people should be terminated etc. horrible things. Health care is not only about cost but care. And it`s in the end, cheaper to insure all than to insure few. For systems that are transitioning from one system to another, there are transition periods. Deal with it, you got a lot of the "rise of cost" coming from peoples who didn`t have that option before. When time passes, the basic health improves, less sick, less suffering, less sick people in general. Moving from universal to private means short time profits until the whole things balances.
  19. Profile photo of Nerd_Rage
    Nerd_Rage Male 18-29
    425 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 6:48 pm
    Frost; the people you are hoping will get taxed to "even things out abit" just got fat tax breaks from our politicians, it only hurts the middle class; it`s an attempt to crash the private healthcare system so they can move us to the single payer system , which would be catastrophic for our standard of living. But forcing demand in the market as NOT how you solve the problem. The issue is that being forced to insure people means that more people will die, which means you will be paying all of those expenses, and the reason you went into business was to profit . Now only this time you are losing money; the only conceivable way to even your bottom line is to raise the price of your product, plain and simple. Then nobody will want to buy private insurance b/c their rates are too high, so then you`ll be forced to buy gov`t subsidized healthcare, not because it`s better, but because it`s all you can afford. Please see "Russia".
  20. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 6:53 pm
    "the higher costs will be spread out over everybody"

    That`s the problem.
  21. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    October 16, 2013 at 7:11 pm
    @C_Frost: You know all those `math classes` you slept through as a youth???

    @Nerd Rage is correct: The `logical end game` of ObamaCare is to have Insurance Companies RUN the healthcare industry. With the government providing the `muscle` to keep pesky `free markets` OUT! And keep `the masses` IN whether they want it or not...

    Choice? No need for that! The government will make it for you!
  22. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14621 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 1:38 am
    It`s not communism, duh! It`s socialism. Socialism is not a bad thing.

    It allows everyone healthcare. It`s also not a zero-sum game; he needs to get HIS math right. A larger industry benefits from economies of scale.

    If you eliminate punitive jury-decided malpractice suits and substitute for a bureaucratic arbitration/judge based systems with payout tables and demonstrations of pecuniary loss, then healthcare gets cheaper.

    You also need to legislate capped costs and standard offer procedure rates under the plan.
  23. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14621 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 1:38 am

    As for the "Death Panels" that are so often quoted by the far-right... yes, there will have to be people who decide what`s right for the aggregate good of the nation balanced with the good of the patient. The partial solution is top-up plans for the wealthy. This is not ideal, and permits a health gap to remain, but at least a good fundamental level of healthcare is provided for the otherwise un-insurable.
  24. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14621 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 1:42 am
    Furthermore, and this is where the real socialism comes in, the nation (federal government or states) needs to subsidise healthcare of the needy at the expense of other less worthy programmes. The cost cannot be borne out by employers and employees alone, because (taken to an extremes) it disincentivises employment. I would see a government subsidy as a temporary measure, renewed annually, until malpractice and super-normal healthcare costs can be reined in.
  25. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 4:03 am
    @Xprez

    "The Affordable Health Care Act doesn`t impact those already living off of everyone else. It affects people that actually work for a living, like me and some of you here."

    Only blind luck keeps you from becoming one of those people. I`m healthy and working too, but I will never assume that I`ll always be that way.

    Hope, but not assume, and don`t cut the safety net out from underneath you in case you one day need it.

  26. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 4:15 am
    @5Cats

    "Already harming average Americans! The ACA is BAD FOR USA. 0-care (zero care)."

    If people on here were jumping on a conservative plan and calling it a failure after giving it scant few days to prove itself, you would be SCREAMING in rage at them.

  27. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 4:19 am
    @CreamK

    "Math also says that disabled people should be terminated etc. horrible things. Health care is not only about cost but care."

    Abso-bloody-lutely.

    I`m sick of having to debate with people who seem to have forgotten that the economy is there to service the people, not the other way around.

    They don`t seem to understand that of course it`ll cost money: things that are worth doing, things that improve people`s lives, generally DO cost money.

    Besides, I doubt that it`ll cost more in the long run anyway. People who have reliable access to healthcare are bound to be healthier and more productive and capable of earning more and paying more taxes. I`m no expert, but I would bet a few pennies on that offsetting the costs.
  28. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6740 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 5:12 am
    AuburnJunky

    ""the higher costs will be spread out over everybody" That`s the problem."

    1. For every 500 lb cancer patient with diabetes that signs up now, 100 perfectly healthy people in their 20s and 30s will. Everyone I know who doesn`t have health insurance is young and healthy, which is why they don`t have health insurance. That is going to balance out the spreading of costs.

    2. The people in this country who are really sick and don`t have health insurance is a small enough number that when spread out over 300 million people the increase in costs, WHATEVER it may be is going to be insignificant. That is math too. Let`s say the new sick people cost the insurance industry a billion dollars more a year. Everyone`s insurance premium would go up 25 cents a month. You think anyone is losing their benefits or job over that?

    3. The new provision that LIMITS insurance company profits comes into play as well.
  29. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6740 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 5:18 am
    5Cats

    "Insurance Companies will make BILLIONS MORE PROFITS because of the ACA, they LOVE IT!"

    Totally disagree. I think they hate it.

    "The Affordable Care Act holds health insurance companies accountable to consumers and ensures that American families receive value for their premium dollars. Because of health care reform, insurance companies now must disclose how much they spend on health care and how much they spend on administrative costs, such as salaries and marketing. If an insurance company spends less than 80% (85% in the large group market) of premium on medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care, they must rebate the portion of premium that exceeded this limit. This rule is commonly known as the 80/20 rule or the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rule."
  30. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 5:24 am
    "The Affordable Health Care Act doesn`t impact those already living off of everyone else."

    Yes, yes it does. People on medicare, like myself, already have to wait a month or more to see a doctor, even longer to see a specialist. Pile on all the millions of uninsured people into the already overcrowded and under served Medicare rolls and the waits are going to double, and likely triple.

    "The people in this country who are really sick and don`t have health insurance is a small enough number.."

    It`s not a small number, 30 to 40 million people (not counting the illegal aliens) is nothing to sneeze at. Not to mention a lot of people are going to lose their current health insurance because of Obamacare.

    The insurance rates are doubling, for most people, and for most this is a complete surprise because they were lied to and told their premiums would go down $2000+ and that if they liked their plan they`d get to keep it.
  31. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6740 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 6:07 am
    Crakr

    "Pile on all the millions of uninsured people into the already overcrowded and under served Medicare rolls and the waits are going to double, and likely triple."

    1. Why do you assume that the people serving medicare patients aren`t going to increase accordingly? Won`t the market adjust to fit the need? You don`t go to a government run medical facility. You go to a for profit private sector facility. They will grow to accommodate.

    2. The number of people on medicare is nowhere near going to triple. Why would waits triple?

    "It`s not a small number, 30 to 40 million people"

    That is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the number. Most uninsured americans are not super sick people, they are young healthy people that don`t buy insurance because they don`t need it.

    "The insurance rates are doubling, for most people,"

    *CITATION NEEDED*
  32. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 6:35 am
    Why do you assume that the people serving medicare patients aren`t going to increase accordingly?

    You got it backwards, you`re assuming that insurance is the same as access. It`s not, if we want to subsidize access the money should go to hospitals not insurance policies.
  33. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6740 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 6:42 am
    Cajun247

    "You got it backwards, you`re assuming that insurance is the same as access."

    So you are saying the reason crakr has waits is because of insurance companies and not the number of providers that take the insurance?
  34. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 6:54 am
    @HolyGod

    That is going to balance out the spreading of costs.
    This means that the average cost of insurance goes up. Even if our rates all stay the same (a BIG "if", IMO), the average rate still increases because more people are in the system. In the past, they paid nothing.

    In ANY economic system, there are only a few ways to mitigate a sudden increase in demand: first, rapidly expand supply (impossible in healthcare); second, ration; and third, raise prices.

    Let`s say the new sick people cost the insurance industry a billion dollars more a year.
    As you would say, "citation needed" XD

    The new provision that LIMITS insurance company profits comes into play as well.
    Historical precedent suggests that the insurance companies will find a way to work around this.
  35. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 6:59 am
    @HolyGod

    That is one way of putting it, in fact people on Medicaid are actually worse off than uninsured patients because Medicaid pays too little. The same could be said for many health insurance companies because of a lack of choice. IMHO Obamacare reforms are not the vehicles to fix this problem.
  36. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 7:45 am
    @CrakrJak

    "Pile on all the millions of uninsured people into the already overcrowded and under served Medicare rolls and the waits are going to double, and likely triple."

    I thought Obamacare required people to buy insurance (or pay a fee/fine)?

    How does that end up adding people to Medicare?

    (Also, bit rich for you of all people to talk about other people`s insurance premiums going up when you don`t pay any yourself).
  37. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 7:50 am
    @HumanAction

    "Even if our rates all stay the same (a BIG "if", IMO), the average rate still increases because more people are in the system. In the past, they paid nothing."

    The rates will only go up if the percentage of people needing care goes up.

    Compare:
    100 policy holders, 10 people need treatment = 10:1 ratio of payers/users.
    We then add in loads of extra people:
    1000 policy holders, 100 people need treatment = 10:1 ratio of payers/users.
    The cost per person stays exactly the same.

    The only reason adding 30-40 million people to that pool would add costs is if a disproportionate number of those people are sick. And as HolyGod has repeatedly pointed out, a large number of them are young and healthy.

    TL:DR, yes you`re adding more "drains" on the system, but you`re also adding a lot more people paying into the system too.
  38. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 8:12 am
    @Musuko

    The rates will only go up if the percentage of people needing care goes up.
    Sure, but this is a given in any third-party payer system. Adding people to a system where they are not directly responsible for paying will necessarily result in an increase in quantity demanded.

    Or, do you suppose that adding 30-40 million people to the healthcare system will somehow lower the quantity demanded? I think not.

    a large number of them are young and healthy
    What is the primary reason people are uninsured in the US? Simply, insurance is too expensive. Otherwise, they would have it. Why would they have it if it were affordable? To use it, obviously.

    Simple logic suggests that quantity demanded will surely rise.
  39. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 8:15 am
    @Musuko

    Also, we are talking about different things, somewhat. You seem to be saying that the rates for already insured people could very well stay the same or even go down.

    Sure. I don`t think it`s likely, but sure - could happen.

    I am saying that the rates for those 30-40 million people go up; they have to. Beforehand, they paid zero dollars (they didn`t have insurance) and now they pay something; that`s an increase in rate.

    When you average those 30-40 million people in at 0$ for the "before" column, then the AVERAGE rates for all Americans necessarily increase. How could they not?
  40. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 8:26 am
    @HumanAction

    You`re getting things mixed up. The quantity of people needing care will go up, but so too will the quantity of people paying but not needing care.

    As long as the ratio between the two (healthy v sick) is the same, it doesn`t matter how many are in the system. The cost per person will remain the same.
  41. Profile photo of Ilikelogic
    Ilikelogic Male 40-49
    550 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 8:26 am
    I pay 2.8% of my pay, my employer adds the same amount and we all have a good health insurance, even the 96 year olds, the obese, the people with cancer, diabetes and so on.
    Greetings from Luxemburg.
  42. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 8:29 am
    @HumanAction

    Ah, I get what you`re trying to say now.

    Well, of those 30-40 million, I`m given to believe that a number of them were wanting to pay for insurance, but were blocked (pre-existing conditions). They will now buy insurance because they are now allowed to.

    And the rest: I`d say there are two types. Those who don`t pay because they can`t afford it and are gambling that they stay healthy, and those who don`t pay because they are wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for any potential medical costs.

    Of those two; those who can`t afford it anyway are pretty screwed, and I don`t know enough about the legislation over there to know if they are helped or covered somehow. And those who are wealthy enough: I doubt they would struggle with the additional expense.
  43. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 8:32 am
    @HumanAction

    "When you average those 30-40 million people in at 0$ for the "before" column, then the AVERAGE rates for all Americans necessarily increase. How could they not?"

    The average cost for the insured Americans would (potentially) stay the same. That`s what I was talking about.

    The average cost for all Americans, which is what you were saying...well, I don`t know about that. Of those 30-40 million who were paying nothing before, when they got sick surely SOMEBODY was having to pay for their healthcare, be it themselves, the taxpayer, the hospitals (if the patient goes bankrupt and doesn`t pay), etc.

    If that somebody is American, then wouldn`t the average cost stay the same, because it`s in there somewhere?

    Assuming they got treatment. If they *didn`t* get treatment for whatever reason, then you still have a cost: the lost productivity of that unhealthy/dead person.
  44. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 8:35 am
    @HumanAction

    "In ANY economic system, there are only a few ways to mitigate a sudden increase in demand: first, rapidly expand supply (impossible in healthcare); second, ration; and third, raise prices."

    But demand isn`t going up: there is still the same number of sick people needing treatment.

    I thought the American system allowed you to get treatment regardless, and then the bill got sorted out afterwards?

    Or do/did hospitals there actually turn people away when they can`t pay, and let them die?

    In which case, holy ****...how heartless could anyone be to defend that system?
  45. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 8:46 am
    @musuko

    The average cost for all Americans, which is what you were saying
    Exactly.

    Look, I don`t suppose that the people now entering the system will be any more or less sickly than those already in the system. There`s simply no data to support either claim, at least none that I`ve come across. That leaves me with what I consider the most likely assumption - that they`ll use about the same amount per person as everyone else. Any other argument relies on an assumption that is drastically different from the average and is completely untestable, and therefore, indefensible.

    In other words, I don`t think we can honestly say that the 30-40 million people will use more, or less, services than the average. At very least, we should not form an entire argument around such a baseless assumption.
  46. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 8:50 am
    @HumanAction

    "In other words, I don`t think we can honestly say that the 30-40 million people will use more, or less, services than the average. At very least, we should not form an entire argument around such a baseless assumption."

    Exactly. And it`s not worth trying to guess it. We`ll soon find out.
  47. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 8:52 am
    @musuko

    But demand isn`t going up: there is still the same number of sick people needing treatment.
    Ah, OK, I get what you`re saying. No, hospitals may not refuse emergency care. They can (and occasionally do) refuse all other forms of care though.

    Quantity demanded will go up. The person who could not pay for the carpal tunnel procedure will now get it. In an attempt to be less dramatic, I`ll just say `so on and so forth." XD

    In addition, we have to consider the consequence of rapidly injecting the insurance market with "extra" cash. As we have seen with all universal health insurance systems (Europe, Canada, US...), we get a bubble. I can discuss why this happens if you`re interested.

    If we really want to do universal healthcare, it should be subsidized healthcare pegged to a percentage of cost per procedure - not universal health insurance.
  48. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:00 am
    @HumanAction

    "Quantity demanded will go up. The person who could not pay for the carpal tunnel procedure will now get it."

    That can only be a good thing, surely; both for the individual, and for the nation.

    If you have any sick person going without treatment, then it`s personal suffering, and also a weakening of the nation: that person is either suffering, or risking, ill health. And a person in ill health is not going to be working and paying taxes and generally making the nation better off.

    So it`s good for both sides: the wishy-washy emotional side, and the pragmatic side.
  49. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:02 am
    @HumanAction

    "If we really want to do universal healthcare, it should be subsidized healthcare pegged to a percentage of cost per procedure - not universal health insurance."

    Shoulda, coulda, didn`t...but one day might.

    What you have now is kinda like civil partnerships in the UK: it wasn`t gay marriage, but it was part of the way there (most of the way there, really).

    And guess what; we have gay marriage now. It came along later.

    Who knows, maybe Obamacare will work out great, people like CrakrJak will see that the sky didn`t fall and the world didn`t end, and they might be a little more willing to hear out the idea of true universal healthcare if it gets floated a few years down the line.
  50. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:05 am
    @musuko


    That can only be a good thing, surely; both for the individual, and for the nation.
    I wasn`t trying to prove whether or not it was "good/bar" or "right/wrong." I was only trying to show that quantity demanded will increase. XD

    Sure, it`s certainly good by most measures that sick people will get care. Absolutely! I couldn`t agree more. However, that doesn`t absolve us of our responsibility to assess the cost of such things.

    Cost will increase. Whether or not it is going to be worth it is an entirely different argument.
  51. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:05 am
    @HumanAction

    PS: I missed a thought. Hospitals previously could refuse non-emergency care...and non-emergency illness if left untreated can often become an emergency illness, with all the additional risks and higher costs that come with it.

    If they now have to treat the non-emergencies, they might in doing so avert some of the emergencies from ever developing. Not all, obviously. But perhaps enough to give balance.

    Kinda like...with your car. Getting that oil change for £50 now means you`re not spending £5,000 on a new engine later.
  52. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:08 am
    @HumanAction

    "I wasn`t trying to prove whether or not it was "good/bar" or "right/wrong." I was only trying to show that quantity demanded will increase. XD"

    Fair enough. Forget that part of the conversation (or treat it seperately) :)

    Will costs increase, though? The whole "treat early, treat cheaper" thing, getting more people healthy and earning/taxpaying, etc?

    Costs might increase...but savings (on avoided emergency treatments) might also increase. As might income (productivity and tax from people not languishing with untreated treatable health issues).

    The net result might be a gain. Or at least...a smaller loss.
  53. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:12 am
    @musuko

    Shoulda, coulda, didn`t...but one day might.
    Sure, but it`s still worth arguing about.

    I think Obamacare is going to be nothing more than an expansion of our current multi-party third-party-payer system. Economically, it`s about the worst possible system out there; it suffers from a lack of single-buyer leverage and it suffers from third-party payments.

    Universal health insurance is cheaper. While it still suffers from third-party payments, and is therefore still susceptible to bubbling, it takes advantage of single-buyer leverage - as I call it.

    Cheaper yet is directly subsidized healthcare. Public hospitals with public employees that charge a percentage of what the procedure actually costs.

    That being said, without an Amendment, I`m against federal healthcare. I think the States and/or state conglomerates should make the decision to do so if desired.
  54. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:19 am
    @musuko

    Kinda like...with your car.
    I agree entirely with this premise.

    Unfortunately, Americans sure do love their cheeseburgers. In all seriousness though, preventative care is great for things like cancer. That being said, from my experiences, I still think food is the number one culprit of poor health in this country. I doubt very much that any amount of lecturing via doctor/caregiver will change the eating habits of Americans.

    Even the nutritional guidelines from the USDA - which hardly any Americans meet - are woefully inadequate.
  55. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:20 am
    @HumanAction

    Oh absolutely agreed. From what little I can understand of it all, it`s an improvement of a bad system, rather than a replacement of the system.

    It`s probably the most that can be accomplished at the moment. I doubt your system could be overhauled and replaced in one go. There`s far too much momentum in it.

    How to switch it over? I couldn`t say, personally.

    Hmm...I wonder if the best way is a creepy kind of reverse of the norm: allow one insurance company to swell and take over all the others, becoming the sole provider.

    And at the same time, tighten and modify legislation so that sole provider is very firmly under the control of the democratically elected government.

    It sounds scary. But really...universal healthcare is basically a form of nation-wide single-supplier insurance.
  56. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:24 am
    @HumanAction

    "Unfortunately, Americans sure do love their cheeseburgers."

    There`s often been talk of taxing fatty foods the same way cigarettes and alcohol are taxed.

    I don`t see why not, really. You still have the freedom to do it, but with it comes the responsibility of its consequences.

    I suppose if it got the carrot and stick treatment, people might go for it; tax on unhealthy foods, subsidy on healthy foods.

    Possibly too much meddling for the average freedom-loving American. But, if you could make it part of the social contract: we treat you if you get sick, in exchange you make a bit of effort not to get sick.
  57. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:30 am
    @HumanAction

    One thing though: take the profit out of healthcare, and you get a doctor who benefits more from saying "do some exercise and eat fewer burgers", rather than a doctor who benefits from waiting until their patient needs a nice pricey heart bypass operation.

    When healthcare is seen as a cost, rather than a profit oportunity, the incentive becomes reducing the cost, rather than raising the price.

    So long as it`s done legitimately (preventative treatment) rather than cheating (avoiding giving treatment, giving poor treatment, etc), then the incentive is in the right place.

    It`s an ugly system where the healthcare system is happier when you`re sick rather than when you`re healthy.
  58. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:31 am
    @musuko

    There`s often been talk of taxing fatty foods the same way cigarettes and alcohol are taxed.
    That`s one of the really scary parts (to me, at least) about national healthcare. Once the government starts spending tax dollars on something, it becomes a blank check to regulate people in that regard.

    Call it a "slippery slope" if you will, but there`s little difference in the underlying principles of taxing unhealthy food and taxing unhealthy lifestyles; doing either would be "good" for the cost.

    Possibly too much meddling for the average freedom-loving American.
    Oh, yea. Definitely.
  59. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:38 am
    @HumanAction

    You`re correct: it is scary, and it can be a slippery slope.

    But...that`s true of government in general; we`ve collectively chosen to group together and abide by the rules created by those we choose to rule us.

    You stop the slide down the slippery slope for this topic in the same way you do for everything else: keeping firm control over those we have chosen to make the rules we obey.

    Consider this: Americans may traditionally shy away from such legislation. But what if the American psyche is changing? What if they are becoming more willing to accept such social contracts? Surely the re-election of Obama when he was flying the flag of Obamacare is a sign that, at least to some extent, this is happening?

    After all, the American people by and large came around to accepting mandatory seatbelt laws. Once upon a time that was a scary intrusion into personal liberty.
  60. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:40 am
    @HumanAction

    PS: Besides, when the most you have to fear from your government is an extra 50c on a Big Mac, you`re not in fear of much. ^_^
  61. Profile photo of dang007
    dang007 Male 30-39
    596 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:44 am
    >>>When healthcare is seen as a cost, rather than a profit oportunity, the incentive becomes reducing the cost, rather than raising the price.
    <<<

    This is silly. The provider will ALWAYS see the service as a profit opportunity. That is why they provide the service. The change that needs to be made is on the consumer side. Consumers need to be able to clearly judge if they are getting a return on there healthcare dollars. All insurance, especially insurance were the insurer directly pays the provider, limits the consumers ability to do this.
  62. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:45 am
    @musuko

    take the profit out of healthcare, and you get a doctor who benefits more from saying "do some exercise and eat fewer burgers"
    How? The doctor will still make the same amount of money, especially if he`s salaried.

    "Non-profit" simply means that the company cannot take a profit. The employees (and CEOs), who are the companies biggest expense, can still receive ridiculous salaries. For example, the CEO of the American Cancer Society - a non-profit - made nearly $1 million last year.
  63. Profile photo of dang007
    dang007 Male 30-39
    596 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:46 am
    >>>After all, the American people by and large came around to accepting mandatory seatbelt laws. Once upon a time that was a scary intrusion into personal liberty.>>>>

    And it still is, well except that it does not seem scary anymore. See we are already slowly sliding down the slope.
  64. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:50 am
    @HumanAction
    @dang007

    Okay, I`ll correct myself: align the provider`s profit incentive with the customer`s goals.

    In the example of healthcare: what if every doctor were responsible for a certain number of patients, and the higher the collective health of those patients (measured by how frequently they attend with ailments), the more the doctor gets paid?

    This gives the doctor a profit incentive; but rather than profiting when patients are sicker, he profits when they are more healthy. This gives him a profit incentive to be more active with preventative treatment, early treatment, etc.

    I`m not saying that doctors deliberately let patients fester with illnesses until they become more serious and expensive and profitable to treat. I give them more trust than that.

    But this would certainly incentivise them in the other direction.
  65. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:51 am
    @musuko

    we`ve collectively chosen to group together and abide by the rules created by those we choose to rule us.
    Ehh... grey area. What of the rules our parents` government made? Our that of our grand-parents? We did not agree to those. Yet, we are still expected to abide by them.

    I think it was Jefferson who had what I consider one of the most valid points ever made regarding government: why should one generation be able to indebt another?

    He argued that every generation should nullify any debts that the parent generation incurred. If nothing else, it would keep the budget honest as very few countries would lend to the US!

    But alas, I am but a humble "fundamentalist, extremist, Constitution-loving, libertarian, idealist."
  66. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:52 am
    @dang007

    "And it still is, well except that it does not seem scary anymore. See we are already slowly sliding down the slope."

    Depends on your view point. Some call it a slippery slope. Others call it progress.

    I wouldn`t worry too much. Scandinavia are much further down the slope, and their societies are fantastic.
  67. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:58 am
    @HumanAction

    "What of the rules our parents` government made? Our that of our grand-parents? We did not agree to those. Yet, we are still expected to abide by them."

    Our parents didn`t have to create us. We owe them our existence.

    We live in their world by invitation. With that comes some measure of justifiably expecting us to respect the world they`ve built.

    Within limits, naturally, and I see what you mean about the debt being passed on; nobody should be allowed to birth a child for the purpose of making them their slave.
  68. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 9:58 am
    @musuko

    In the example of healthcare: what if every doctor were responsible for a certain number of patients, and the higher the collective health of those patients (measured by how frequently they attend with ailments), the more the doctor gets paid?
    Whoa. Now that is a scary thought.

    First off, who would oversee such a system? An entirely new department would need to be created just to monitor doctors and healthcare providers.

    Next, I suspect we would see a sudden drop-off of doctors. Either that, or, many would move to the private sector. People REALLY resent have their salaries decided by the whims of bureaucrats.
  69. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:10 am
    @HumanAction

    "First off, who would oversee such a system? An entirely new department would need to be created just to monitor doctors and healthcare providers."

    Doesn`t such a department(s) already exist? Surely doctors and healthcare providers are extensively monitored.

    "Next, I suspect we would see a sudden drop-off of doctors. Either that, or, many would move to the private sector. People REALLY resent have their salaries decided by the whims of bureaucrats."

    That already happens to an extent. But this is the same with every profession. The "CEOs will flee the country" effect.

    We can`t really be held to ransom by these people, can we?

    Anyway, easy solution: government gives you a medical degree for free, you pay it off by working an agreed amount of time in the universal healthcare system. Nobody`s forced to do it, it`s a fair trade, everyone wins.
  70. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:16 am
    @musuko

    Surely doctors and healthcare providers are extensively monitored.
    They are overseen by a private board and are subject to the legal system. They would need to hire quite a few people to monitor doctors on a patient-by-patient level.

    We can`t really be held to ransom by these people, can we?
    Isn`t it the other way around? As in, isn`t the government then holding the individual`s job ransom in exchange for compliance?

    Interesting to see the differences in perspective.

    Nobody`s forced to do it, it`s a fair trade, everyone wins.
    If they amended the Constitution for it, then that works for me. I think you`d be surprised to know that there are already some private hospitals and schools that do this.
  71. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:28 am
    @HumanAction

    Why does the constitution need to be ammended? Does the constutition say anything about taxes paying for roads and other public services?

    Or does it say anything about why healthcare can`t be considered a public service?
  72. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:30 am
    @HumanAction

    "I think you`d be surprised to know that there are already some private hospitals and schools that do this."

    Perfect. We know it works then. :)
  73. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6740 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:32 am
    HumanAction

    "This means that the average cost of insurance goes up. Even if our rates all stay the same (a BIG "if", IMO), the average rate still increases because more people are in the system. In the past, they paid nothing."

    ? Please explain that. If our rates stay the same and then you add more people, paying the same rate, the average rate DOES NOT increase.

    In ANY economic system, there are only a few ways to mitigate a sudden increase in demand"

    Sure. I don`t see demand increasing THAT much. Hopefully now the demand will start shifting from uninsured people at urgent cares and ERs to insured people at their doctor`s office.

  74. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6740 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:32 am
    HumanAction

    "As you would say, "citation needed" XD"

    Oh, for sure. However note I used the words "let`s say". I`m talking in hypotheticals while crakr talks in absolutes with words like "are" and "will". I just was showing how a huge number like a billion wouldn`t make everyone`s rates skyrocket the way this video makes it seem. I have NO idea what the number would be.

    "Historical precedent suggests that the insurance companies will find a way to work around this."

    I guess we`ll see. However, an attempt at oversight is better than nothing in my opinion.
  75. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:34 am
    @HumanAction

    "They would need to hire quite a few people to monitor doctors on a patient-by-patient level."

    It wouldn`t need to be quite that intense. Put together whatever kind of metrics are needed to measure patient health (get cleverer people than me to do it), have doctors record what`s necessary, get computers to crunch the numbers, and spit out the doctor`s bonus pay based on the numbers.

    Include a team of auditers who`ll periodically check the doctors aren`t fiddling their numbers, and I would say you`re about done.
  76. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:43 am
    @musuko

    Does the constutition say anything about taxes paying for roads and other public services?
    Yes. Article 1 Section 8 lists everything that the Congress may collect taxes for. "Roads" is actually one of those things.
  77. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:48 am
    @holygod

    Please explain that.
    Sure.

    Right now we have something like 350m people. Something to the effect of 40m are uninsured (number doesn`t really matter here as long as it`s greater than 0). Let`s, for simplicity`s sake, just say that the average cost of health insurance is (x).

    Right now, here is what we have:

    Average Cost Per Person = (310x + 40*0)/350... That`s 31/35x.

    Now, let`s give insurance, at the same rate (x) to the rest:

    Average Cost Per Person = 350x/350... That`s 1x.
  78. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:49 am
    @HolyGod

    However note I used the words "let`s say".
    Fair enough. I was trying to be funny.
  79. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:49 am
    @HumanAction

    So it does! Bad example then. ^_^

    What about police? Is that covered under militia?
  80. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:52 am
    @HumanAction

    You`re missing out a big chunk of the equation, however. In a purely simple sense, the average insurance will go up, but the tax burden will go down by exactly the same amount.

    Because those 40 million were getting treatment anyway. All you`re doing is shifting how their treatment is paid, from tax-funded medicare/aid/whatever, to insurance funded.

    Net result, no change (not taking into account the various complexities, of course).
  81. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 10:57 am
    @Musuko

    What about police? Is that covered under militia?
    Well, most of the police aren`t federal; they`re either local or state.

    They get away with some due to a VERY liberal interpretation of the General Welfare Clause. The funny thing about that is that Hamilton (I think it was Hamilton) decided that the interpretation was a liberal one after the Constitution was signed into law. Before the signing, Jefferson stated plainly that it did not give the government such power.

    Imagine a salesman telling you that the contract means something specific that you agree to, so you sign it. Then, right after signing it, a different salesman says "Oh, you though it meant that? No. It actually means this!"

    Kind of the same thing.
  82. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 11:00 am
    @musuko

    In a purely simple sense, the average insurance will go up, but the tax burden will go down by exactly the same amount.
    Isn`t this just coming around full circle to our discussion of change in demand?
  83. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 11:00 am
    @HumanAction

    "Well, most of the police aren`t federal; they`re either local or state."

    I see! Fair enough then.

    So it could boil down to being a state-supplied thing, perhaps?

    Hey, yeah, perhaps that is a good solution. Some states would vote to provide universal healthcare, some wouldn`t.

    Are US states allowed to put together things like that?
  84. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 11:13 am
    @musuko

    Are US states allowed to put together things like that?
    For sure. Massachusetts does it.
  85. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 11:17 am
    @musuko

    See, the States were originally like European countries and the federal government was like the EU.

    The federal government was only there to do the big things like universal currency, national defense, settling interstate disputes...
  86. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 11:19 am
    There`s nothing new here. Liberals are immune to facts.
  87. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 11:21 am
    @OldOllie

    We`ve just had pages and pages of some pretty good discussion...

    ...and that`s what you chime in with.

    Wow. How massively you have added to this discussion. How valuable your contribution is.

    Go back to sleep, deary.
  88. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    @Musuko42 Reality`s a bitch, isn`t it?
  89. Profile photo of dang007
    dang007 Male 30-39
    596 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 12:32 pm
    >>>>It wouldn`t need to be quite that intense. Put together whatever kind of metrics are needed to measure patient health (get cleverer people than me to do it), have doctors record what`s necessary, get computers to crunch the numbers, and spit out the doctor`s bonus pay based on the numbers. <<<<

    Congratulations you have just created the perfect system to scam. Doctors no longer need to worry about patient care. Just how they report things. Why worry about a dissatisfied customer just be sure they don`t count in the rankings.

    I agree that profit should be aligned with outcome. The free market system in which providers interact directly with consumers and NOT through a third party (insurance or government)accomplishes this better than any other system. Thus by definition a state run health care system is NOT the best choice.
  90. Profile photo of dang007
    dang007 Male 30-39
    596 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 12:38 pm
    >>>but the tax burden will go down by exactly the same amount. <<<

    How can you say that with a straight face.

    More people using the finite resource. (I do not see a huge influx of doctors, or a long list of doctors with lots of time to fill.) The price goes UP. People that used to wait until they could not stand it any longer, i.e often just suffered through a bad cold or allergy, will now go to the doctor. More demand for the service HIGHER PRICES. So no the reduced tax burden (by the way were exactly is my tax reduction.) will not of set my increased cost.
  91. Profile photo of pazerlenis
    pazerlenis Male 40-49
    1380 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    @OldOllie, "Reality`s a bitch, isn`t it?"

    Something tells me Reality is what you named your female dog...
  92. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 5:08 pm
    @OldOllie

    "Reality`s a bitch, isn`t it?"

    I`m not a liberal: you can`t measure me by your culture`s political catagories, as I`m not part of your culture.

    What your culture considers "liberal" is entirely different to mine. Likewise for "conservative".

    For example: the Conservative party over here DEFENDS the NHS (universal healthcare). The standard little-c conservative over there would be an ultra hardcore right-winger here.

    But...if you feel more capable of dismissing anything I have to say by slapping a label on me and writing me off as an uninformed "sheep", feel free. You`re in your 60s. I won`t have to deal with you in a decade or two. You`re pretty irrelevant to a lot of people`s future.
  93. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 5:14 pm
    @dang007

    As was pointed out, more people won`t be using the resource: they`re already using it. HumanAction stated that in the US, hospitals can`t refuse you treatment for emergencies.

    All that changes is how those people pay for it. Before, they weren`t paying for it (going bankrupt), so the hospitals foot the bill. Or the government foots the bill via welfare.

    What WILL increase in demand, I grant you, are non-emergency treatments, as people will obtain them rather than go without as they were before.

    BUT the increased cost of that is surely offset by the increased health, productivity, and tax-payments of the people who get the treatment. Previously, they were sicker, less productive, unable to work some or all of the time, etc etc.

    Bottom line: healthier population = more productive population = wealthier population = happier population = BETTER.
  94. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    October 17, 2013 at 5:17 pm
    @dang007

    "Congratulations you have just created the perfect system to scam."

    It was one idea, pulled out of my arse. An arse that belongs to a person who isn`t a politician, healthcare expert, or anything even remotely qualified to dream up viable policies.

    I would trust that the people who ARE the above things would be able to come up with something more robust.

Leave a Reply