Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare

[taks]

Nah. UHC saves money by being understaffed, underequipped and overcrowded. It wouldn't be as expensive as current premiums are, even more so considering the current lack of real competition in that sector.

not according to every cost study that has been done to date. not only will it not be less expensive, there won't be as much to go around (rationing).

 

A government-managed UHC works like every government-related thing. Badly, slowly and inefficiently. And they do work on a budget there, too.

remember, i was replying to the previous quotes... i don't think i directly quoted this one.

 

No, I was simply arguing from the premises given.

OK.

 

That UHC will be cheaper for the vast majority than insurance premiums.

which i do not believe to be true, and most of the cost studies support my opinion. unless, of course, you think obama knows what he's talking about.

 

this, btw, is part of the reason they're in a mad dash to rewrite these plans because it leaked out how high the true costs will be. oof.

 

If many people already can't afford it, and taxes to cover for it were expected to be higher than premiums are now, for everyone, there wouldn't really be an argument - hence my question "what's the point?"

yes, "what's the point" is the question. that seemed contrarary to your other statements, but i understand where you were going with it now.

 

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anything but your word to support that, and the fact that anything government-run is more inefficient.

every single study done by someone other than a direct political beneficiary of UHC. granted, if you stick to CNN, MSNBC, or any of the standard MSM avenues for your sources of information, you might not hear about any of these other studies. even the CBO has said the numbers being touted by the white house are not even close to correct. in fact, even obama's advisers have said it is "when," not "if," taxes get raised. i'd call that a freudian slip.

 

FWIW, we know socialist is more inefficient (not so much "government run," but typically the two are synonymous) simply because there is no mechanism to adjust for supply and demand. the profit motive of capitalism is what makes it efficient, and that does not exist in a socialized system.

 

taks