I think you picked a poor example for an analogy. Driving without insurance is sheer stupidity and stupid people aren't generally cautious! :lol:
Obamacare upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
I think you picked a poor example for an analogy. Driving without insurance is sheer stupidity and stupid people aren't generally cautious! :lol:
Sure, there are indeed plenty of poor decisions that place a strain on the healthcare system, and I'm one of those folks who is actually fine with having a mixture of public and private. So long as everyone is covered and has access to preventative as well as therapeutic treatment, I'm fine with that.
It's when you have people that do not have access to medications and the like, that it takes a huge toll on society. Lost productivity, lower social mobility, it's not best.
The former CEO-current chairman- of the corporation I work for had some very good comments last week on healthcare in the Boston Globe. They parallel my own actually. It's along the lines of looking at healthcare systems around the word, and determining the best practices. When we know what the best practices are, implementing them doesn't even really need to be legislated. Though I suspect it would require some.
Here's an excerpt from his article:
Growing demand and the cost of health care are stretching the budgets not just in Massachusetts, but all over the world. Governments everywhere are faced with a stark choice: leave the health care system as it is and face rising taxes and declining quality of care, or start to do things differently.
Towards this end, many nations and states are resorting to sweeping legislative reforms. The hurdles faced by Affordable Care Act in the US are a reminder that improving health care through ambitious legislation can be protracted, complex, and highly contentious.
What is the alternative? “Doing more with less” is a mantra from Capitol Hill to the corporate sector. A Novartis-McKinsey joint study has found evidence that can make it a reality, making health care more affordable, and therefore more accessible.
We saw striking differences in the way patients with the same disease condition are managed across nations. No one health care system is better than the others: almost every system is good at managing certain diseases. Breast cancer patients in the US lived the longest. High blood pressure was most effectively treated in Canada. The United Kingdom has a low disease burden of diabetes. Stroke was most effectively treated in Switzerland. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have the best outcomes in France.
Towards this end, many nations and states are resorting to sweeping legislative reforms. The hurdles faced by Affordable Care Act in the US are a reminder that improving health care through ambitious legislation can be protracted, complex, and highly contentious.
What is the alternative? “Doing more with less” is a mantra from Capitol Hill to the corporate sector. A Novartis-McKinsey joint study has found evidence that can make it a reality, making health care more affordable, and therefore more accessible.
We saw striking differences in the way patients with the same disease condition are managed across nations. No one health care system is better than the others: almost every system is good at managing certain diseases. Breast cancer patients in the US lived the longest. High blood pressure was most effectively treated in Canada. The United Kingdom has a low disease burden of diabetes. Stroke was most effectively treated in Switzerland. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have the best outcomes in France.
The smart ones are because they know if they cause an accident their rates will sky rocket! :smile:
What would the same accident cost them without insurance? Losing a 20% safe driving discount is nothing in comparisson to paying for two vehicles and any potential physical injuries.
Without insurance I'd drive reeeeeally carefully.
Without insurance I'd drive reeeeeally carefully.
No comparison, but more important is the comparison between smart people and stupid people.
From what I can gather you are financially fixed enough, that don't have to drive without insurance and smart enough not to try it. Even without an accident the fine for not having it can amount to $hundreds?
Where is it going to come from? I believe they are going to get it from taxes somehow, if not premiums. But if the Health Care providers have to kick in... they will surely share the burden don't you think?
Well you don't need to tell me to run stairs. I am one of those few Americans that does stay in shape.
But how are we going to make my obese society do the same?
Pull out all stops................by doing so your health bill will be cut in half in a very few years! :smile:
The people around here who drive without insurance are people who don't believe they have to follow any laws, generally speaking, they drive like idiots and are as likely to be drunk as not, because they have nothing to lose if they get in an accident.
That would be limiting the choices for our poor welfare recipients for starters. In Massachusetts they can use their Welfare Cards on everything from fast food to gourmet dinners. That would be mean spirited even though our "poor" are the fattest poor in the world and the most obese economic class in the US. Not too mention they get health care for free as it is.
Perhaps having their wages garnished for the rest of their lives, or spending their entire life on welfare.
If everyone was poor THEY'D ALL HAVE FREE HEALTHCARE!
Provided by doctors and nurses who are poor? Would you want that compulsory brain surgery? :lol:
That research of all those dead Americans came from Harvard Medical research, not the news media. Therefore, you again have made yet another,
BIG TIME FAIL
Hey Dumb azz... Did you read the article?
Here is a an exerpt...
"That the famous study by the Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance has been a reliable Democrat talking point for months. But its estimate that 44,789 "excess deaths" are associated with lack of health insurance annually is rarely questioned by the media. They should be."
Suck on that BIG TIME FAIL!
Everyone remembers that Obamacare was never actually passed by congress, especially all you fans of Mr. Transparency Hopey Changey right? Right!?
Well, interesting new perspective on the SC decision that I haven't heard much about other than the link I'm about to provide you....
Since Obama care was deemed, and since you can't deem a bill having to do with taxation, it would appear that (according to this guy) Obamacare may be constitutional, but invalid. It never passed.
Self-repealing, if you will.
If the Affordable Care Act is 'a tax,' does that make the law invalid? | MRCTV
Well, interesting new perspective on the SC decision that I haven't heard much about other than the link I'm about to provide you....
Since Obama care was deemed, and since you can't deem a bill having to do with taxation, it would appear that (according to this guy) Obamacare may be constitutional, but invalid. It never passed.
Self-repealing, if you will.
If the Affordable Care Act is 'a tax,' does that make the law invalid? | MRCTV
Ummm...there's a lot of mythology out there.
Public Law 111 - 148 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3590:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 155 (2009):
Oct. 7, 8, considered and passed
House.
Nov. 21, 30, Dec. 1-10, 13, 15, 16,
19-24, considered and passed
Senate, amended.
Vol. 156 (2010):
Mar. 21, House concurred in Senate
amendments.
DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2010):
Mar. 23, Presidential remarks.
Public Law*111 - 148 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
It passed the House, before it passed in the Senate. The bill number is HR-3590, that means it's a bill originating in the House of Representatives. Senate bills start with S-
Hmmm.
Also, the Senate can get around the revenue question by inserting the text of a revenue bill into a bill that has already passed through the House.
Right. More fodder for Stewart and Colbert. Apparently being able to read is not a prerequisite for being a reporter on those networks.
What he's saying appears to be true. The original bill from the House was HR-3962, which was abandoned in favour of the Senate bill 3590, HR or no HR.
Hmmm.
Anyway, g'night.