Why do liberals whine for UHC when over 40 states are creating programs to prove low income condition insurance?
This doesn't even get into the fact that the parliament will provide Medicaid for anyone who is disabled due to an illness.
Answers:
Obviously you don't know crap about the health perfectionism system.
Liberals don't watchfulness about people's health and liberals don't assistance about rational solutions.
This isn't *socialist* adequate and its not costing the taxpayers the trillions of dollars they would like.
All liberals care around is socialism and building their dream socialist-welfare dystopia where everyone is equally poor and slaves to the government for anything meager sustenance a collapsed economy can provide.
The rhetoric of "liberals care," is one of the biggest lies surrounded by politics today.
If there is one thing just about liberalism that one must understand is this:
Liberals want a country where everyone but a few restricted in power are totally dependent on the government for *all* their requirements. A country where "individualism" is replaced by a herd mentality.
Most liberals are any to stupid or too blind to see destruction their ideology seeks to inflict on America.
Why?
Because the idea of living surrounded by a society where someone else is taking care of you from cradle to grave and where on earth you don't have to do anything but exist, is a powerful opiate.
There are too many ethnic group in this country who would rather do nought for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Source(s): These problems should be dealt with at the state rank.
If I had medical coverage my first wife wouldnt hold died at 29 leaving me with an 8 year hoary daughter to raise on my own. I didnt qualify for the low income medical programs and I didnt have the money to buy the insurance on my own.
Now I own declared bankruptcy, lost my home, lost my wife, and my dog ran away too (I wouldnt enjoy even had a dog if it werent for my republican MIL, but I dont blame that on Reps, just her).
It would be far more cost effective to hold one single-payer rather than 50 unique, and repetitive systems.
Further, near UHC, Medicare and Medicaid can dissappear, further reducing costs.
If you cared only around the poor and the disabled then we would maintain the status quo. Universal Health Care is a better business deal for all Americans, rich, poor, healthy and harmful than the current system Countries with Universal health watchfulness spend less on administration and more on vigour care.
You are thinking private sector because it has the profit motive can deliver form care at lower prices and better results. For health thoroughness, the laws of economics are against you.
For company to make a profit, they must receive more within premiums than they pay out. To cover the costs of those who cannot live without form care premiums must be high. If vigour care could attract those who are healthy, their premiums would cover the others. No insurance company can lower premiums adequate to attract buyers who are healthy because those in the pool are high-cost patients. The premiums are other high and some will be unable to afford insurance. Without employer paying for health insurance for high and low cost insurees, the souk for health insurance would collapse.
The value of UH is spread of risk and cost across oodles people.
I stole my analysis from the "The Undercover Economist" by Tim Hartford. His analysis based on financial theories in the link below.
Even if you get rid of all government healthcare programs, our problems beside healthcare would be the same.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/econo…
They need some reason to socialize federal establishment.
Related Questions:
Answers:
Obviously you don't know crap about the health perfectionism system.
Liberals don't watchfulness about people's health and liberals don't assistance about rational solutions.
This isn't *socialist* adequate and its not costing the taxpayers the trillions of dollars they would like.
All liberals care around is socialism and building their dream socialist-welfare dystopia where everyone is equally poor and slaves to the government for anything meager sustenance a collapsed economy can provide.
The rhetoric of "liberals care," is one of the biggest lies surrounded by politics today.
If there is one thing just about liberalism that one must understand is this:
Liberals want a country where everyone but a few restricted in power are totally dependent on the government for *all* their requirements. A country where "individualism" is replaced by a herd mentality.
Most liberals are any to stupid or too blind to see destruction their ideology seeks to inflict on America.
Why?
Because the idea of living surrounded by a society where someone else is taking care of you from cradle to grave and where on earth you don't have to do anything but exist, is a powerful opiate.
There are too many ethnic group in this country who would rather do nought for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Source(s): These problems should be dealt with at the state rank.
If I had medical coverage my first wife wouldnt hold died at 29 leaving me with an 8 year hoary daughter to raise on my own. I didnt qualify for the low income medical programs and I didnt have the money to buy the insurance on my own.
Now I own declared bankruptcy, lost my home, lost my wife, and my dog ran away too (I wouldnt enjoy even had a dog if it werent for my republican MIL, but I dont blame that on Reps, just her).
It would be far more cost effective to hold one single-payer rather than 50 unique, and repetitive systems.
Further, near UHC, Medicare and Medicaid can dissappear, further reducing costs.
If you cared only around the poor and the disabled then we would maintain the status quo. Universal Health Care is a better business deal for all Americans, rich, poor, healthy and harmful than the current system Countries with Universal health watchfulness spend less on administration and more on vigour care.
You are thinking private sector because it has the profit motive can deliver form care at lower prices and better results. For health thoroughness, the laws of economics are against you.
For company to make a profit, they must receive more within premiums than they pay out. To cover the costs of those who cannot live without form care premiums must be high. If vigour care could attract those who are healthy, their premiums would cover the others. No insurance company can lower premiums adequate to attract buyers who are healthy because those in the pool are high-cost patients. The premiums are other high and some will be unable to afford insurance. Without employer paying for health insurance for high and low cost insurees, the souk for health insurance would collapse.
The value of UH is spread of risk and cost across oodles people.
I stole my analysis from the "The Undercover Economist" by Tim Hartford. His analysis based on financial theories in the link below.
Even if you get rid of all government healthcare programs, our problems beside healthcare would be the same.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/econo…
They need some reason to socialize federal establishment.
Related Questions:
- Is it true when my sisters boyfriend say he can't grasp form insurance for their child?
- How does American vigour insurance work? Can anyone recommend somewhere to find more information?
- Who else will choose to compensate the 8% fine instead of paying for robustness insurance for your workers?
- So, if 15% of Americans don't hold robustness insurance?
- Do Republicans ever turn to town foyer meeting and settle to locals something like their condition assistance and insurance?