As Congress prepared to pass the ACA four years ago, Obama told the House Democratic Congress, “[E]very single good idea to bend the cost curve and start actually reducing health care costs are in this bill.” The need to reduce spending on health care drove the debate, both in terms of government and private spending................“In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year"….. How quickly/easily we forget.
I stand corrected. That is an obviously ridiculous claim. The only things that will lower our healthcare costs are a single payer system and patent reform.
"The only things that will lower our healthcare costs are a single payer system and patent reform."........ These are claims made by reformers that mean no more than those made by Reid, Pelosi, and President Obama, et al re: ACA.
There was "evidence" for that in ACA.............Nope, just not "single payer" England's NHS sucks by any/all measures, and most if not all government's universal care is supplemented with private insurance by any/all that can afford it. Thus still again the poor get less.
"98,000 in the US".............."What’s the right number? Nobody knows for sure"...... same article. (my "usual obfuscation"? LOL), and our population is 7 times that of England, and don't have the benefit of "single payer" ;-)
In England the government operates the entire health system, doctors, hospitals the whole lot. That is not single payer. Single payer is where the government simply provides insurance, i.e. reimburses private doctors and hospitals. So whatever the state of England's system that is irrelevant.
And I'd still like to hear your solution to our healthcare problems.
The English government does not operate the entire health system. There are private facilities, and private insurers, as I stated earlier, for those who can afford it....................................And I'd still like to hear your solution to our healthcare problems...What healthcare problems in particular?
The England NHS is a network of government run hospitals and doctors. That is not single payer. Nobody is talking about implementing that form of healthcare in the US.
The millions of previously uninsured and the fact we spend at least twice as much per person on healthcare as anybody else in the world.
"we spend at least twice as much per person on healthcare as anybody else in the world." We have over twice the advanced diagnostics than the rest of the world, MIRs etc. We treat more "at risk pregnancies", more cases that are death prognosticated", in general more "high risk procedures/cases" than any other nations in the world.
Recognizing that this is futile, but at what point in his speech did he claim immediate results? Where did he say "the moment this comes into law health care will never become more expensive and premiums will drop immediately"?
This program is a start. It's already dropped national spending on health care and it's projected to save billions that wouldn't have been saved otherwise. It isn't perfect and it has places that can be improved. The fact that you're complaining because it isn't already perfect is just silly.
Republicans have now had six years with which to come up with a viable replacement for Obamacare. Not once have they ever produced a serious proposal, just specious claims that they'll do it eventually. Until they do I'll take incremental progress over none at all.
Futile is correct. He promised immediate relief. "Projections" have proved incorrect. .........."The fact that you're complaining because it isn't already perfect is just silly" this is your attribution, nowhere hinted at in my comments.................."Republicans have now had six years with which to come up with a viable replacement for Obamacare." The Dems then and President Obama now have stated their opposition to any/all alternative(s), so any such offerings would be just as you stated "futile".
Yes, they've had to increase the savings projected for the program, not the cost.
nowhere hinted at in my comments
Except of course that you're complaining that it doesn't do what you imagine it was promised to do.
The Dems then and President Obama now have stated their opposition to any/all alternative(s), so any such offerings would be just as you stated "futile".
The Democrats and Obama alike have always signaled their willingness to negotiate and at least discuss proposals, unlike Republicans. But they can't discuss what isn't offered. That's on the Republicans, not the Democrats.
"Yes, they've had to increase the savings projected for the program, not the cost" You should read this article. Your cite(s)? LOL,........... "Except of course that you're complaining that it doesn't do what you imagine it was promised to do." .....once again your attribution..............."The Democrats and Obama alike have always signaled their willingness to negotiate and at least discuss proposals,"... This is a lie from the get go. the Dem's denied all Republican offerings to this bill throughout it's construct.
Your complaints would begin to have any credibility if you could cite them. Since you refuse that request I think we can take it as read that you can't. Everything you've said flatly contradicts the public record, so I'll just leave it here.
Health care costs were supposed to decline under Pelosi-Reidcare.
Were they? I don't remember anyone making that claim. The rate of increase was supposed to slow.
As Congress prepared to pass the ACA four years ago, Obama told the House Democratic Congress, “[E]very single good idea to bend the cost curve and start actually reducing health care costs are in this bill.” The need to reduce spending on health care drove the debate, both in terms of government and private spending................“In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year"….. How quickly/easily we forget.
I stand corrected. That is an obviously ridiculous claim. The only things that will lower our healthcare costs are a single payer system and patent reform.
"The only things that will lower our healthcare costs are a single payer system and patent reform."........ These are claims made by reformers that mean no more than those made by Reid, Pelosi, and President Obama, et al re: ACA.
They mean more because there is evidence they work.
I'm curious, do you have a preferred method of reducing healthcare costs and providing healthcare for the previously uninsured?
There was "evidence" for that in ACA.............Nope, just not "single payer" England's NHS sucks by any/all measures, and most if not all government's universal care is supplemented with private insurance by any/all that can afford it. Thus still again the poor get less.
Evidence that England's NHS sucks? Real evidence, not your usual obfuscation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/16/nhs-deaths_n_3602472.html, is the latest, the list is huge and easily accessible, if one actually cares. Obfuscation? You obviously have me confused with someone else.
98,000 in the US
"98,000 in the US".............."What’s the right number? Nobody knows for sure"...... same article. (my "usual obfuscation"? LOL), and our population is 7 times that of England, and don't have the benefit of "single payer" ;-)
Benefit - exactly. The US is a third world country when it comes to looking after its citizens.
In England the government operates the entire health system, doctors, hospitals the whole lot. That is not single payer. Single payer is where the government simply provides insurance, i.e. reimburses private doctors and hospitals. So whatever the state of England's system that is irrelevant.
And I'd still like to hear your solution to our healthcare problems.
Evidence that "The US is a third world country when it comes to looking after its citizens.",Real evidence not your just displayed "obfuscation".
Six Ways America Is Like a Third-World Country
The English government does not operate the entire health system. There are private facilities, and private insurers, as I stated earlier, for those who can afford it....................................And I'd still like to hear your solution to our healthcare problems...What healthcare problems in particular?
I ask for evidence, you cough up Rolling Stone not Salon? LOL ............ Nitey nite.
The England NHS is a network of government run hospitals and doctors. That is not single payer. Nobody is talking about implementing that form of healthcare in the US.
The millions of previously uninsured and the fact we spend at least twice as much per person on healthcare as anybody else in the world.
Once again obfuscating, not responding to the evidence. Goodnight troll.
"we spend at least twice as much per person on healthcare as anybody else in the world." We have over twice the advanced diagnostics than the rest of the world, MIRs etc. We treat more "at risk pregnancies", more cases that are death prognosticated", in general more "high risk procedures/cases" than any other nations in the world.
Name calling..... tsk, tsk;-)
That's not an answer to my question.
Recognizing that this is futile, but at what point in his speech did he claim immediate results? Where did he say "the moment this comes into law health care will never become more expensive and premiums will drop immediately"?
This program is a start. It's already dropped national spending on health care and it's projected to save billions that wouldn't have been saved otherwise. It isn't perfect and it has places that can be improved. The fact that you're complaining because it isn't already perfect is just silly.
Republicans have now had six years with which to come up with a viable replacement for Obamacare. Not once have they ever produced a serious proposal, just specious claims that they'll do it eventually. Until they do I'll take incremental progress over none at all.
Futile is correct. He promised immediate relief. "Projections" have proved incorrect. .........."The fact that you're complaining because it isn't already perfect is just silly" this is your attribution, nowhere hinted at in my comments.................."Republicans have now had six years with which to come up with a viable replacement for Obamacare." The Dems then and President Obama now have stated their opposition to any/all alternative(s), so any such offerings would be just as you stated "futile".
Go on. Cite it. Be specific.
Yes, they've had to increase the savings projected for the program, not the cost.
Except of course that you're complaining that it doesn't do what you imagine it was promised to do.
The Democrats and Obama alike have always signaled their willingness to negotiate and at least discuss proposals, unlike Republicans. But they can't discuss what isn't offered. That's on the Republicans, not the Democrats.
"Yes, they've had to increase the savings projected for the program, not the cost" You should read this article. Your cite(s)? LOL,........... "Except of course that you're complaining that it doesn't do what you imagine it was promised to do." .....once again your attribution..............."The Democrats and Obama alike have always signaled their willingness to negotiate and at least discuss proposals,"... This is a lie from the get go. the Dem's denied all Republican offerings to this bill throughout it's construct.
Your complaints would begin to have any credibility if you could cite them. Since you refuse that request I think we can take it as read that you can't. Everything you've said flatly contradicts the public record, so I'll just leave it here.
You may take "it" any way you wish, however your reliance on "cites" is one way, no? LOL