Show me The refuted data.
Obamacare saved $2.3 trillion in healthcare spending to date and saved families an average of $4000
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
Show me The refuted data.
the canadian propaganda bot sticking up for the other foreign bots. kind of funny.
lying too... as you know many of my posts a quite critical of Trump being rolled by Ryan and McConnell.
lying too... as you know many of my posts a quite critical of Trump being rolled by Ryan and McConnell.
Russian shill says what?
Canada is also, being touted by liberal trolls for their excellent healthcare yet, top officials of Canada come to the US for surgery and pay their own way out of their pockets? The reality is rationed care in long wait times will kill you if not the disease itself! Again, how is your healthcare to help you when you hope you live long enough just to get any care at all?
While, we are on the topic of healthcare, watch UnAmerican, documentary on the actual truth about the UK's NHS and Cuba and see how the lies of Michael Moore is exposed with actual hidden cameras and a Cuban doctor risking himself to show the world the truth! It is on Amazon
Prime video if you have a membership.
Prime video if you have a membership.
The fallacy here is that "saving" is relative to an educated guess, i.e., a projection. But, and however, projections, because they involve the unknown future, are notorious for being wrong. Consequently, given only the projected and the actual costs, how do we know whether policy changes reduced cost or the projection was too high?
That’s fair skepticism. Two points: 1. From a historical perspective, we can observe a bend in the spending trajectory and 2. At the very least, with the implementation of ACA, spending trajectory has not increased beyond historical norms.
That is at least somewhat comforting. We have, in my opinion, a problem for which "the solution" is known. Because "the solution," however, would cause individuals who benefit dearly from things as they are making substantially less money, these individuals will not be amused if we propose such a solution. Were we to follow the normal course of political decision making, those same, not-amused individuals would ultimately be the ones deciding whether we implemented "the solution."* It isn't likely, therefore, that we will. What is likely is that we shall be stuck with outrageously expensive, irrational, substandard, spotty, inhumane medical care, even if we manage to call it something else, such as "medicare for all." The legislative poison pill will work its wonders to protect the interests of the U.S. Medical Cartel.
There are, however, extra normal routes to a solution, one involves guillotines, but these are old fashioned and horrifying. Another extra normal solution would be via the political process, whereby suddenly those in power are thrown out at the ballot box and a new cadre of politicians are swept in. If these new politicians are substantially less dependent on the largesse of those with vested interests, it is possible that our horrible U.S. Healthcare Cartel can be dismantled.
Because we now have a thing called the "internet" through which great sums of money can be raised quickly, I see this latter route to implementing "the solution" as a possibility. Unfortunately, also because of the internet, we have a thing called disinformation. And too, we have always had, and will continue to have, the "poison pill" which is lethal to the effectiveness of legislation and also more easily administered than any real poison for reasons i'm not inclined to go into. Nevertheless, a little introspective thought will lead anyone to the reason the legislative poison pill is so easily swallowed.
It is thoughts like these that have led me to conclude that a parliamentary form of government, with all its faults, is superior to our own.
________________________
*The "unamused," in this case, are the ones with all our money which they use to buy our legislator's obeisance and their advocacy of causes not in our best interests.
Obamacare phased out the expensive Medicare Part D imposed by the fiscal conservative Dubya, anyone claiming that phasing out a 400 billion program wouldn't decrease spending does not understand math.
Your claiming that Obama phased out Medicare Part D drug coverage. This is patently false. Medicare Part D is still in existence today. Obama simply made it more expensive and worse.
Go read about Medicare Part D on the U.S. government Medicare website.
https://www.medicare.gov/drug-coverage-part-d
Your continual ignorance and fabrication is unreal.