If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Minn Post)   In another sign of the failures of Obamacare, Vermont has a plan to totally circumvent it by 2017   (minnpost.com) divider line 123
    More: Followup, obamacare, health insurance, losers  
•       •       •

1621 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2013 at 7:48 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-19 07:16:29 PM
Single payer?  It'll never work.
 
2013-11-19 07:51:49 PM
It's Vermont. Rural state, negligible diversity, long history of competent governance. They could pull it off since they and Utah are our two Norways.
 
2013-11-19 07:52:52 PM
America FARK YEAH!

/too soon?

//not soon enough
 
2013-11-19 07:56:53 PM
Hopefully this all works out for the best, people see that it works, and we can start the ball moving in getting a national Single Payer system in the works within the next decade...

People always ask me why I like the ACA, I tell them I don't like it. But Single Payer will never happen, so I take it a step in the right direction. Hope this proves that statement wrong.
 
2013-11-19 07:59:42 PM

Will-Mun: Hopefully this all works out for the best, people see that it works, and we can start the ball moving in getting a national Single Payer system in the works within the next decade...

People always ask me why I like the ACA, I tell them I don't like it. But Single Payer will never happen, so I take it a step in the right direction. Hope this proves that statement wrong.


baby steps I hope
 
2013-11-19 08:00:04 PM
I'll have my popcorn ready and watching from a safe distance in 2017 and beyond. It'll be great in 2017, maybe even 2018, and then the immutable laws of supply and demand will rear their mofugly heads. Long lines for "free" (FTA) healthcare services for VT residents. Healthcare "tourism" (read: fraud, which nearly destroyed TennCare). Healthcare professionals moving out of state to get away from mandated compensation/price controls.

Honestly? I'd be happy to be wrong about that.

Every system of trying to provide health insurance for all sucks. Single payer sucks the most and returns the least.
 
2013-11-19 08:01:28 PM
If Colorado instituted single payer I think I'd move there.
 
2013-11-19 08:01:46 PM
So if my kid gets cancer move to Vermont?
 
2013-11-19 08:03:40 PM
They've been planning this pretty much since Obamacare was passed almost four years ago. I'm sure it will turn out well.

Maryland is trying something pretty cool too. Their cost commission had a waiver to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates if they could keep growth below normal. They're applying for a new one that (I think) will add global budgeting among other things.
 
2013-11-19 08:04:43 PM

bdub77: If Colorado instituted single payer I think I'd move there.


Don't. It is awful here. Everything sucks. We have wild fires that kill, floods that kill, tornadoes that kill. And worst of all, the Denver Nuggets.


/seriously don't do it
 
2013-11-19 08:05:34 PM

Gulper Eel: It's Vermont. Rural state, negligible diversity, long history of competent governance. They could pull it off since they and Utah are our two Norways.


Mike Hill, Chris Stewart. Hardly Norway. Unless  '14 and '16 are very different than '10, it's Uhganda.
 
2013-11-19 08:06:14 PM

Jodeo: I'll have my popcorn ready and watching from a safe distance in 2017 and beyond. It'll be great in 2017, maybe even 2018, and then the immutable laws of supply and demand will rear their mofugly heads. Long lines for "free" (FTA) healthcare services for VT residents. Healthcare "tourism" (read: fraud, which nearly destroyed TennCare). Healthcare professionals moving out of state to get away from mandated compensation/price controls.

Honestly? I'd be happy to be wrong about that.

Every system of trying to provide health insurance for all sucks. Single payer sucks the most and returns the least.


If by "sucks the most and returns the least" you actually mean "drastically lowers healthcare costs" then you are correct.
 
2013-11-19 08:08:48 PM

Serious Black: They've been planning this pretty much since Obamacare was passed almost four years ago. I'm sure it will turn out well.

Maryland is trying something pretty cool too. Their cost commission had a waiver to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates if they could keep growth below normal. They're applying for a new one that (I think) will add global budgeting among other things.


This is my hope. I don't want the ACA being remembered as awesome or anything. I want the ACA being remembered as the thing that was the stepping stone to getting real health insurance.
 
2013-11-19 08:09:36 PM
As a conservative, i think this is great...

for Vermont.

Florida, not so much.
 
2013-11-19 08:11:36 PM

Johnny Savage: As a conservative, i think this is great...

for Vermont.

Florida, not so much.


That's a pretty good point. If this gets more popular at the state level I would think Florida would be leading the charge for national single payer.
 
2013-11-19 08:13:00 PM
My biggest problem with this is healthcare tourism. Be bootstrappy and get the minimum insurance for a nearby state. Drive to Vermont when something expensive happens. Go back to being bootstrappy and pocket the savings.

Vermont needs to get other states on the same page to actually make a solution. Even if it's just the cluster from New York to Maine, the freerider problem would mostly get solved.
 
2013-11-19 08:15:16 PM

jst3p: So if my kid gets cancer move to Vermont?


I hope we get to see how many New Hampshirites move to Vermont and drop that Live Free or Die crap.
 
2013-11-19 08:15:17 PM

jst3p: Johnny Savage: As a conservative, i think this is great...

for Vermont.

Florida, not so much.

That's a pretty good point. If this gets more popular at the state level I would think Florida would be leading the charge for national single payer.


You're probably right. I think single payer is an awful idea in this country, but if it picks up steam, this state would go bankrupt without it at the federal level.
 
2013-11-19 08:19:42 PM

Johnny Savage: I think single payer is an awful idea in this country


Why? Be specific. The only two reasons I hear are "B-b-but sochiulisms!" and "Because we're not Europe."
 
2013-11-19 08:20:19 PM

grumpfuff: Johnny Savage: I think single payer is an awful idea in this country

Why? Be specific. The only two reasons I hear are "B-b-but sochiulisms!" and "Because we're not Europe."


Err, should clarify that as "I've ever heard." Not saying you agree with either one.
 
2013-11-19 08:35:12 PM

grumpfuff: Johnny Savage: I think single payer is an awful idea in this country

Why? Be specific. The only two reasons I hear are "B-b-but sochiulisms!" and "Because we're not Europe."


My money is on "open borders and unchecked immigration, the illegals will come for health care and not pay into the system."
 
2013-11-19 08:37:57 PM

grumpfuff: Johnny Savage: I think single payer is an awful idea in this country

Why? Be specific. The only two reasons I hear are "B-b-but sochiulisms!" and "Because we're not Europe."


Well... in no particular order...

1. There are too many people that don't want it. I don't care how good an idea is, if enough of the people don't want it, it won't work. That has less to do with politics and more to do with psychology.

2. I think medicine/health care thrives best under pure capitalism. This would be a long discussion, but i think it's the perfect industry for supply/demand.

3. We have functioning state governments with control over the insurance industries within their borders.

4. In fact, we aren't culturally homogeneous. This isn't a state to state thing; it's regional. This creates huge actuarial issues.

5. An eextra degree of separation between the end user and the provider.

6. I don't trust insurance companies.

There are more reasons, but I'm on my tablet and typings a biatch.

Please pardon the typos
 
2013-11-19 08:41:33 PM

Johnny Savage: 6. I don't trust insurance companies.


That is an argument for single payer, not against it.
 
2013-11-19 08:42:28 PM

Johnny Savage: 2. I think medicine/health care thrives best under pure capitalism. This would be a long discussion, but i think it's the perfect industry for supply/demand.


If you think "screw the poor", access to healthcare is the way to go!
 
2013-11-19 08:45:54 PM
Johnny Savage:

1. There are too many people that don't want it. I don't care how good an idea is, if enough of the people don't want it, it won't work. That has less to do with politics and more to do with psychology.

That can be said of many things(Civil Rights comes to mind instantly).  Whether or not people like an idea is irrelevant if it actually improves their lives.

2. I think medicine/health care thrives best under pure capitalism. This would be a long discussion, but i think it's the perfect industry for supply/demand.


America has had that for decades and tens of millions went without.


3. We have functioning state governments with control over the insurance industries within their borders.


Yes, and currently there are GOP controlled states doing everything they can to hamstring the ACA.


4. In fact, we aren't culturally homogeneous. This isn't a state to state thing; it's regional. This creates huge actuarial issues.


See my response to 1

5. An eextra degree of separation between the end user and the provider.


How so?  As a Canadian I just walk into a hospital and get service.


6. I don't trust insurance companies.


Then why are you presenting a case that favors keeping them?
 
2013-11-19 08:46:03 PM

jst3p: Johnny Savage: 6. I don't trust insurance companies.

That is an argument for single payer, not against it.


Insurance companies would administer it, my friend. They are the halliburton equivalents in the industry.

Single payer means one payer. That one payer is the government. They only write the checks. Blue, aetna, cigna, humana, etc. would be the back room.
 
2013-11-19 08:46:08 PM
FTA -

Vermont will save 25 percent per capita over the current system in administrative costs and other savings.

Then why is the "slight tax increase" necessary?

Also FTA (emphasis added) -

All hospitals and health-care providers in Vermont will be nonprofit.

Any that stay, you mean?  How much are doctors allowed to make?

Imagine an entire state with no Tenet, HCA, or other for-profit hospitals, No more doctor-owned surgery centers, imaging centers, cancer centers, orthopedic centers.  No Quest or LabCorp to test your blood.  No for-profit mental health facilities.  No for-profit providers or insurance companies at all.

Glad she survived cancer and is getting insurance but she seems a little touched in the head.  Not much in that article made sense, but it would be interesting to watch them try it.

/too bad it will never happen
 
2013-11-19 08:50:23 PM

jst3p: Johnny Savage: 2. I think medicine/health care thrives best under pure capitalism. This would be a long discussion, but i think it's the perfect industry for supply/demand.

If you think "screw the poor", access to healthcare is the way to go!


I'm likewise baffled. Health care is pretty much the least perfect industry for supply and demand. It's the least elastic good that has ever existed or ever will exist.
 
2013-11-19 08:53:15 PM

Johnny Savage: jst3p: Johnny Savage: 6. I don't trust insurance companies.

That is an argument for single payer, not against it.

Insurance companies would administer it, my friend. They are the halliburton equivalents in the industry.

Single payer means one payer. That one payer is the government. They only write the checks. Blue, aetna, cigna, humana, etc. would be the back room.


The government would negotiate prices with the insurance companies, this was why Medicare part D added a crapload to the national debt.


Furthermore, there are different flavors of single-payer.  The government could offer an array of basic services and insurance companies can offer more premium plans.
 
2013-11-19 08:54:08 PM

Serious Black: jst3p: Johnny Savage: 2. I think medicine/health care thrives best under pure capitalism. This would be a long discussion, but i think it's the perfect industry for supply/demand.

If you think "screw the poor", access to healthcare is the way to go!

I'm likewise baffled. Health care is pretty much the least perfect industry for supply and demand. It's the least elastic good that has ever existed or ever will exist.


I am going to just hope he is in his early 20's and holding on to the idealism that comes with youth. I thought some stupid stuff back then too.
 
2013-11-19 08:55:19 PM

Serious Black: jst3p: Johnny Savage: 2. I think medicine/health care thrives best under pure capitalism. This would be a long discussion, but i think it's the perfect industry for supply/demand.

If you think "screw the poor", access to healthcare is the way to go!

I'm likewise baffled. Health care is pretty much the least perfect industry for supply and demand. It's the least elastic good that has ever existed or ever will exist.


As mentioned, this would be a long discussion more suited for bottles of bourbon by the fire, but it has to do with incentivizing providers and the base demand of the patient (the fact that it forces self-education.)
 
2013-11-19 08:58:06 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: Johnny Savage: jst3p: Johnny Savage: 6. I don't trust insurance companies.

That is an argument for single payer, not against it.

Insurance companies would administer it, my friend. They are the halliburton equivalents in the industry.

Single payer means one payer. That one payer is the government. They only write the checks. Blue, aetna, cigna, humana, etc. would be the back room.

The government would negotiate prices with the insurance companies, this was why Medicare part D added a crapload to the national debt.


Furthermore, there are different flavors of single-payer.  The government could offer an array of basic services and insurance companies can offer more premium plans.


Possibly. I don't think the states would relinquish their power to the feds, though.
 
2013-11-19 08:58:17 PM
Switzerland have a system where a)everyone MUST get insurance. No matter what. There's no exemptions for religious reasons or whatever. b) All health insurance companies HAVE TO offer a basic package to everyone, regardless of health conditions. If people want better insurance, they can go ahead and underwrite, or purchase supplemental options. c) Any health care costs over 12% of your yearly income are paid for by the government.
Kinda a half-way point between Obamacare and single payer. It works because of the mandate. The worst idea is to wait longer for the mandate (after all the abolishment of underwriting) or don't have a mandate that will make people pay attention for 3 years.
 
2013-11-19 09:03:42 PM

Johnny Savage: As mentioned, this would be a long discussion more suited for  only make sense afterbottles of bourbon by the fire, but it has to do with incentivizing providers and the base demand of the patient (the fact that it forces self-education.)

 
2013-11-19 09:05:46 PM

Flappyhead: Johnny Savage:

1. There are too many people that don't want it. I don't care how good an idea is, if enough of the people don't want it, it won't work. That has less to do with politics and more to do with psychology.

That can be said of many things(Civil Rights comes to mind instantly).  Whether or not people like an idea is irrelevant if it actually improves their lives.

2. I think medicine/health care thrives best under pure capitalism. This would be a long discussion, but i think it's the perfect industry for supply/demand.


America has had that for decades and tens of millions went without.


3. We have functioning state governments with control over the insurance industries within their borders.


Yes, and currently there are GOP controlled states doing everything they can to hamstring the ACA.


4. In fact, we aren't culturally homogeneous. This isn't a state to state thing; it's regional. This creates huge actuarial issues.


See my response to 1

5. An eextra degree of separation between the end user and the provider.


How so?  As a Canadian I just walk into a hospital and get service.


6. I don't trust insurance companies.


Then why are you presenting a case that favors keeping them?


1.Civil rights are not a service provided by the private sector.

2.The insurance industry hasn't been 'capitalistic' since reimbursements have been tied to Medicare and state governments have been dictating loss ratios (1970s?).

3.My point was that there are competing powers.

4.Actuarial science is what keeps health care solvent.

5.the u.s. is not Canada.

6. See other posts.
 
2013-11-19 09:13:06 PM

cchris_39: Imagine an entire state with no Tenet, HCA, or other for-profit hospitals, No more doctor-owned surgery centers, imaging centers, cancer centers, orthopedic centers.  No Quest or LabCorp to test your blood.  No for-profit mental health facilities.  No for-profit providers or insurance companies at all.


Imagine all the people, living life in peace
You may say cchris_39's a dreamer
But he's not the only one...
 
2013-11-19 09:14:30 PM

bdub77: If Colorado instituted single payer I think I'd move there.


Is that even being discussed in colorado?
 
2013-11-19 09:16:46 PM

Jodeo: I'll have my popcorn ready and watching from a safe distance in 2017 and beyond. It'll be great in 2017, maybe even 2018, and then the immutable laws of supply and demand will rear their mofugly heads. Long lines for "free" (FTA) healthcare services for VT residents. Healthcare "tourism" (read: fraud, which nearly destroyed TennCare). Healthcare professionals moving out of state to get away from mandated compensation/price controls.

Honestly? I'd be happy to be wrong about that.

Every system of trying to provide health insurance for all sucks. Single payer sucks the most and returns the least.


Is this opposite day?
 
2013-11-19 09:17:53 PM
Johnny Savage:

1.Civil rights are not a service provided by the private sector.

2.The insurance industry hasn't been 'capitalistic' since reimbursements have been tied to Medicare and state governments have been dictating loss ratios (1970s?).

3.My point was that there are competing powers.

4.Actuarial science is what keeps health care solvent.

5.the u.s. is not Canada.

6. See other posts.


1) Your initial comment had nothing to do with capitalism.
2)Regulations exist for a reason, 2008 is a good example
3)And?
4)No it doesn't, it's what keeps insurance companies rich
5)It's not any other country either, that's just a dodge
6)Again, all you're doing is making the case for insurance companies
 
2013-11-19 09:19:34 PM

Johnny Savage: 1. There are too many people that don't want it. I don't care how good an idea is, if enough of the people don't want it, it won't work. That has less to do with politics and more to do with psychology.


Lots of people didn't want an end to Jim Crow laws. Lots of people didn't want Social Security. Lots of people didn't want just about everything this nation has ever done. That makes things difficult, but it's not a reason not to do something sensible.

2. I think medicine/health care thrives best under pure capitalism. This would be a long discussion, but i think it's the perfect industry for supply/demand.

According to the laws of supply and demand, health care is the worst possible industry for "pure" capitalism (we'll leave aside the "what does pure mean exactly" conversation). It's practically the definition of something that is inelastic. Aside from supply and demand, pure capitalism involves the consumer having complete and perfect knowledge of their choices and that they will make a rational choice based on that information. When it comes to medicine people will never have complete or perfect knowledge of what they are buying. When it comes to something so personal as health care assuming people will always make rational and not partially or purely emotional decisions is just foolhardy.

3. We have functioning state governments with control over the insurance industries within their borders.

How is that not a reason to do single payer? You realize that single payer can be done at the state level, like medicaid and medicare.

4. In fact, we aren't culturally homogeneous. This isn't a state to state thing; it's regional. This creates huge actuarial issues.

Such as?

5. An eextra degree of separation between the end user and the provider.

How exactly?

6. I don't trust insurance companies.

Wait, you don't trust insurance companies and somehow this is a reason not to do single payer?

Are you familiar with the various successful implementations of single payer health care that exist today? While none is perfect of course, there are some that function very effectively. Canada, Taiwan, etc. If you are curious google up the documentary "sick around the world" that investigates what other countries do. I don't say this to belittle you, but from these questions it seems you may have some misconceptions about what single payer is.
 
2013-11-19 09:19:37 PM

jst3p: So if my kid gets cancer move to Vermont?


Pretty much. My wife might become a resident of a different state because medical procedures we have been paying out of pocket for under my employers craptastic plan, may be covered under Obamacare, just not in our state. We are in the process of finding out exactly what is covered and isn't and will decide from there.
 
2013-11-19 09:39:07 PM
Johnny Savage:
5.the u.s. is not Canada.

So? What does that mean?

Like, I keep hearing this claim that the United States is somehow incapable of enacting single-payer healthcare because of unexplained differences between it and other countries that have enacted such a plan.

Furthermore, what does "cultural homogeneity" have to do with health care? I keep hearing that, too, like the fact that America is a host to a diverse array of cultures somehow prevents its government from enacting any sort of sensible legislation. Would someone who actually believes this care to explain how this is supposed to work?

You can't just claim something and then not back it up, because then nobody's going to believe you, regardless of whether or not your points are actually valid.
 
2013-11-19 09:43:32 PM
This thread is like performance art. Johnny Savage is just trolling/joking, right? Same with cchris_39, right?
 
2013-11-19 09:44:01 PM

Thrag: Johnny Savage: 1. There are too many people that don't want it. I don't care how good an idea is, if enough of the people don't want it, it won't work. That has less to do with politics and more to do with psychology.

Lots of people didn't want an end to Jim Crow laws. Lots of people didn't want Social Security. Lots of people didn't want just about everything this nation has ever done. That makes things difficult, but it's not a reason not to do something sensible.

2. I think medicine/health care thrives best under pure capitalism. This would be a long discussion, but i think it's the perfect industry for supply/demand.

According to the laws of supply and demand, health care is the worst possible industry for "pure" capitalism (we'll leave aside the "what does pure mean exactly" conversation). It's practically the definition of something that is inelastic. Aside from supply and demand, pure capitalism involves the consumer having complete and perfect knowledge of their choices and that they will make a rational choice based on that information. When it comes to medicine people will never have complete or perfect knowledge of what they are buying. When it comes to something so personal as health care assuming people will always make rational and not partially or purely emotional decisions is just foolhardy.

3. We have functioning state governments with control over the insurance industries within their borders.

How is that not a reason to do single payer? You realize that single payer can be done at the state level, like medicaid and medicare.

4. In fact, we aren't culturally homogeneous. This isn't a state to state thing; it's regional. This creates huge actuarial issues.

Such as?

5. An eextra degree of separation between the end user and the provider.

How exactly?

6. I don't trust insurance companies.

Wait, you don't trust insurance companies and somehow this is a reason not to do single payer?

Are you familiar with the various successful implementations of single payer health care that exist today? While none is perfect of course, there are some that function very effectively. Canada, Taiwan, etc. If you are curious google up the documentary "sick around the world" that investigates what other countries do. I don't say this to belittle you, but from these questions it seems you may have some misconceptions about what single payer is.


You don't seem as douchy, so I'll reply to you.

I am familiar with single payer as a concept. My argument is that it isn't feasible in the US because of the existing circumstances. I honestly have no beef with it in theory IF enough of the people want it. I do contend that it isn't palatable to enough people to be valid in this country.

1.Jim Crow =/= ACA
2.i wish i hadn't brought this up because it's too hard to discuss over internet.
3.i don't believe you underwrite a successful single payer system in a union of sovereign states. It has to be all or nothing.
4.free-flow of populace without centralized control.
5.patient sees doctor who bills insurance company who gets payment from government who gets funding from taxpayer. Doctor is more loyal to income source. (This is happening now, to an alarming extent)
6. Again, circumstances on the ground are that insurance companies are going to profit the mostfrom single payer. I just don't trust them. As a conservative, i don't like government and big business jumping into bed together.
 
2013-11-19 09:44:26 PM

Gamiac: Furthermore, what does "cultural homogeneity" have to do with health care?


Those black people might get something.  We can't have that!
 
2013-11-19 09:48:54 PM
Well, looks like I'll need to start saving up my bribe money and schmoozing up to politicians for when the rest of the country goes single-payer with them, and I'm giving "gifts" in "thanks" for medical care.

Just like I'd need to bribe somebody in Chicago to get my kid into the right school:  https://web.archive.org/web/20100325194328/http://www.chicagobreaking n ews.com/2010/03/duncans-staff-kept-list-of-politicians-school-requests .html

America is fundamentally about government owned by the people, not the other way around.

/BTW, was that ever debunked?  It seems to just have disappeared from Google except for the right-wing blogs that were screaming about it.  And I don't trust them to post debunking.
 
2013-11-19 09:50:22 PM
On a macro level, I believe this is again the baby boomers with too much money, no retirement savings, working until well past retirement age and screwing the younger generations.

Maybe it is just me, but my 73 year old boss loves his half a mil a year and 50 foot sailboat.
 
2013-11-19 09:54:35 PM

Johnny Savage: 1.Jim Crow =/= ACA


So? That doesn't address the point in the slightest. I also mentioned the example of social security which you ignored. I can use the amazingly similar example of medicare/medicaid.

2.i wish i hadn't brought this up because it's too hard to discuss over internet.

That's just a huge cop out. How can you possibly reconcile that health care is inelastic in terms of economics when you make the claim that it is the perfect industry for the laws of supply and demand to produce optimum results?

3.i don't believe you underwrite a successful single payer system in a union of sovereign states. It has to be all or nothing.


You realize such a thing exists already. Canada is one on many examples.

4.free-flow of populace without centralized control.

Uh, what? I don't see how this even addresses my point, plus do you believe that we are unique in this regard. What does this even mean? Are you referring to how we have states under the federal government (since you mention that for other points)? Are you unaware that other nations have states too?

5.patient sees doctor who bills insurance company who gets payment from government who gets funding from taxpayer. Doctor is more loyal to income source. (This is happening now, to an alarming extent)

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what single payer is.

6. Again, circumstances on the ground are that insurance companies are going to profit the mostfrom single payer. I just don't trust them. As a conservative, i don't like government and big business jumping into bed together.


Again, you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what single payer is. You really should look into how other nations with single payer systems (or other universal non-single payer systems like Germany) are implemented.
 
2013-11-19 09:56:01 PM

Gamiac: Johnny Savage:
5.the u.s. is not Canada.

So? What does that mean?

Like, I keep hearing this claim that the United States is somehow incapable of enacting single-payer healthcare because of unexplained differences between it and other countries that have enacted such a plan.

Furthermore, what does "cultural homogeneity" have to do with health care? I keep hearing that, too, like the fact that America is a host to a diverse array of cultures somehow prevents its government from enacting any sort of sensible legislation. Would someone who actually believes this care to explain how this is supposed to work?

You can't just claim something and then not back it up, because then nobody's going to believe you, regardless of whether or not your points are actually valid.


I'll try. (No snark)

Black folk, white folk, red folk, yellow folk, etc. All have different life expectancies.

Mormans don't drink.

Irish drink a lot.

Baptists drink in private.

Underage pregnancy rates in the south are higher than the west.

New englanders eat more fish and probably have more mercury in their systems than texans .

(Some of these were pulled out of my ass)

The point is that it is difficult to forecast health concerns/consequences when we are a)cults4ally diverse, and b) free to roam the country. Add into that population booms, and itshard to manage a system.
 
2013-11-19 10:00:59 PM
Here's "Sick around the world" the documentary I mentioned. It's a good primer on how other nations handle health insurance. You should also at least peruse the wiki page on single payer health care to clear up some of your misconceptions on how single payer works.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report