More like Peyote.
don't be salty that you got your ass handed to you Vanz, it's a poor look
Medicare For All Study
- Thread starter iprph90
- Start date
don't be salty that you got your ass handed to you Vanz, it's a poor look
In 2017, U.S. health care costs were $3.5 trillion. That makes health care one of the country's largest industries. It equals 17.9% of gross domestic product.1 In comparison, health care cost $27.2 billion in 1960, just 5% of GDP. That translates to an annual health care cost of $10,739 per person in 2017 versus just $147 per person in 1960.2 Health care costs have risen faster than the median annual income.3
Obamacare's goal is to reduce these costs. First, it required insurance companies to provide preventive care for free.32 That treats chronic conditions before they required expensive hospital emergency room treatments. It also reduced payments to Medicare Advantage insurers.33
Since 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was signed, health care costs rose by 4.3% a year. It achieved its goal of lowering the growth rate of health care spending.34
In 2010, the government predicted that Medicare costs would rise 20% in just five years. That’s from $12,376 per beneficiary in 2014 to $14,913 by 2019. Instead, analysts were shocked to find out spending had dropped by $1,000 per person, to $11,328 by 2014.35
Last edited:
The only reason they are saying that Obamacare was a success is less people are getting insured and those who lost their medical insurance are no longer counted. Typical of liberals, you skew the results by manipulating the figures. Healthcare costs rose more than 4.3% and do you expect those coming up with your bogus figures to tell the truth when their jobs are on the line? When Obamacare reaches the point of rationing and it is coming real soon, inspite of these huge increases of premiums and deductibles, the truth will be exposed for all to see. Not all the liberal lies are going to change that! Medicare for All will be 10 times as bad as Obamacare.
That actually brings up an interesting point.
First of all, I think that you should have access to ANY drug without a prescription. Of course, it would be wise for people to take drugs guided by a prescription from a physician, but that should be their choice and getting a prescription should not be an obligation.
Second and more related to the subject of healthcare costs, an idea that is sadly regarded as radical nowadays, but it makes perfect sense, would be to end the requirement for a licence to practice medicine. On top of that, ending the welfare state allowing free immigration to become something feasible(this is where usually republicans will usually disagree with me, but pay attention to the fact that I wrote that free immigration is only feasible if the welfare state is ended first) and than physicians from all over the world could compete in the U.S., which would make costs go down and quality go up. There's an interesting video from Milton Friedman. Watch what he says about the American Medical Association(this also applies to other similar institutions such as the "Conselho Federal de Medicina"(Federal Council of Medicine), which is the direct equivalent of the AMA here in Brazil and when I say this stuff, my colleges obviously don't like it, but it would be hypocritical of me not to admit that this is true, even if it AT FIRST may seem against my own interest as a physician:
That would help bring costs down, but the main thing would be to end regulatory stupidity and make insurance companies in much bigger numbers to compete. Less red tape + more competition = Even lowers costs and more quality.
Unfortunately, these have become ideas that are so far fetched, that it is virtually impossible to put them into effect. But, this could at least show a direction in which to go. Contrary to the current "accepted" ideas that don't work and never will work, because they are just more of the same that actually created the problems I mentioned(more regulation increasing government's role in healthcare, etc...)
One idea is to have each individual be entirely responsible for their own cancer treatments, whether out of their own funds or through insurance they pay premiums for. Where a cancer patient is unable to pay for their care, they don’t receive care. This will greatly reduce the burden on society that a all-in-one plan creates.
I also am concerned that the young and healthy will remain burdened unfairly for older generation healthcare costs in any future healthcare system in the United States. It is said that 85% or so of healthcare expenses occur in the last year of life.
The article attached below is an opinion piece on the subject of cancer:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-cancer-industry-hype-vs-reality/
I also am concerned that the young and healthy will remain burdened unfairly for older generation healthcare costs in any future healthcare system in the United States. It is said that 85% or so of healthcare expenses occur in the last year of life.
The article attached below is an opinion piece on the subject of cancer:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-cancer-industry-hype-vs-reality/
Access to any prescription drugs and Dr’s without Licenses? LOL, this sounds like something from the lab of JEM. Since VZ gave this a like I think he can be your 1st patient when you come here illegally. Before you arrive here try and kick your paint sniffing habit.
Not quite. Pay attention that I wrote about licencing, NOT certification. You will still have to go through training, if you want to have a doctor's degree. What changes is that people can choose to get treatment with a certified physician or not. I've read some of your posts and I agree with most of what you write. If you have 5 minutes, I'd like to show you another video that talks about this and ask you what do you think about it:
Did anyone just mention Milton Friedman?
Milton Friedman: a study in failure:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/post650