The health industry is heavily regulated; just about every aspect. The cost of regulation is built in from the Doctor's office to the operating room to the MRI machine. Obamacare doubles down on this. Government is a huge driver of costs and to suggest that it is not responsible for reducing them is just plain stupid.
I must have missed the part where I suggested they should be forced to sell. Nope, can't see it anywhere. Are you sure you weren't responding to a different post...on a different site? Because what you wrote has shit to do with what I wrote.
Just buy the source to an existing and functional high volume on line site. Product is product whether it's Insurance or computers. Hell, buy Geico's site. All the security is built in, a product model, etc. All you have to do is modify to fit the new product.
But noooo...Government always has to reinvent the wheel.
Software is made up of worlds created by people hopped up on caffeine and suffering from too little sleep. Hardware follows physical laws, software follows no laws.
Hardware is created, finalized and shipped. Software is a never ending dreary of bug fixes, upgrades and incompatibility.
What is retarded is making shit up and then making a comment about it.
And the people who DO work and can't pay for health insurance will now get it free because of my tax dollars. Say Thank You you fucking son of a bitch.
The problem with single payer and with Obamacare is that neither does anything about cost other than to spread it around.
Costs can and should be reduced. I suspect that will mean some fundamental re-evaluation of how healthcare works and the responsibility of all involved. And this does not mean rationing.
If we concede that the Federal Government should be involved in healthcare at all we can at the very least limit it to what it does best.
1. Large, capital intensive projects such as purchasing diagnostic equipment or building facilities. 2. Funding drug research, thereby making drugs more affordable (created with taxpayer dollars, then you can dictate max prices, etc.) 3. Training doctors and nurses...The quality of military doctors is often the subject of ridicule, but clearly they handle very difficult cases while saddled with a very oppressive organizational environment. So if a quality medical education can be had for less than half a million dollars, we'd all be better off.
All these things help reduce costs yet keep the feds out of the day to day healthcare process...as it should be.
If you had no plans to build a bridge somewhere (say, Alaska) and the bridge costs $50 million, but in order to get people to the bridge so they can cross it, then yes, the costs of the additional roads, etc to "make it actually work" is included in the costs.
If there was no Obamacare, there would be no website and no need for all the extra costs to enable it.
In other words, the engine is part of the cost of the car even though it is separately itemized in the price.
The latest House proposal for increasing the debt limit specifies that the Pres and Congress must use Obamacare. Not sure if that means eliminating the outrageous 75% subsidy or not. I'm sure the Dems will reject.
Slashdot Mirror
NOooo.
The health industry is heavily regulated; just about every aspect. The cost of regulation is built in from the Doctor's office to the operating room to the MRI machine. Obamacare doubles down on this. Government is a huge driver of costs and to suggest that it is not responsible for reducing them is just plain stupid.
Tweaks...not a wholesale rewrite of the entire medical/insurance system.
How about we address the costs instead of redistributing them?
Thirty Million out of 300+ million supposedly don't have health insurance.
So, lets write a plan that affects all 300+ million instead of one that addresses the 30 million.
Brilliant!
I must have missed the part where I suggested they should be forced to sell. Nope, can't see it anywhere. Are you sure you weren't responding to a different post...on a different site? Because what you wrote has shit to do with what I wrote.
Just buy the source to an existing and functional high volume on line site. Product is product whether it's Insurance or computers. Hell, buy Geico's site. All the security is built in, a product model, etc. All you have to do is modify to fit the new product.
But noooo...Government always has to reinvent the wheel.
I'm sure that Liberals and Conservatives alike wish you would just shut the fuck up and keep your bigoted opinions to yourself.
Run the opposite direction!
Software is made up of worlds created by people hopped up on caffeine and suffering from too little sleep. Hardware follows physical laws, software follows no laws.
Hardware is created, finalized and shipped. Software is a never ending dreary of bug fixes, upgrades and incompatibility.
For your own sanity, stay away.
It's only complex if you are a six year old.
Urgent Care facilities are getting to be almost as common as CVS Pharmacies. No reason to go to your Dr. or the Hospital for 80% of the ailments.
$35, BTW.
Dear Suicide Hotline,
If Rsilvergun ever calls...hang up.
Complex?
I own it and if you want it, you have to pay.
That's complex?
What is retarded is making shit up and then making a comment about it.
And the people who DO work and can't pay for health insurance will now get it free because of my tax dollars. Say Thank You you fucking son of a bitch.
DEA budget 2013: $2 billion
Foodstamp program 2013: $80 billion.
For my money, the DEA could go away altogether (along with the ATF, Education department and HHS)
Paying for people who can't work is called humanity.
Paying people who won't work is called stupid.
Too bad most people don't understand that.
In the U.K. you wait 18 months for an MRI.
Just recently, a former Director of something or other in NIH died after having surgery postponed for months and months.
Nice.
Bureaucracy costs money.
ACA, all the oppression and control without all the imaginary benefits of single payer.
Government interested in reducing costs?
Really?
Nice...your anecdote is a dead link. I
The problem with single payer and with Obamacare is that neither does anything about cost other than to spread it around.
Costs can and should be reduced. I suspect that will mean some fundamental re-evaluation of how healthcare works and the responsibility of all involved. And this does not mean rationing.
If we concede that the Federal Government should be involved in healthcare at all we can at the very least limit it to what it does best.
1. Large, capital intensive projects such as purchasing diagnostic equipment or building facilities.
2. Funding drug research, thereby making drugs more affordable (created with taxpayer dollars, then you can dictate max prices, etc.)
3. Training doctors and nurses...The quality of military doctors is often the subject of ridicule, but clearly they handle very difficult cases while saddled with a very oppressive organizational environment. So if a quality medical education can be had for less than half a million dollars, we'd all be better off.
All these things help reduce costs yet keep the feds out of the day to day healthcare process...as it should be.
But it's the beginning of a new....eh...never mind.
Obama didn't even look at it...Rejected.
2028, just 20 (give or take 5) years away...still.
If you had no plans to build a bridge somewhere (say, Alaska) and the bridge costs $50 million, but in order to get people to the bridge so they can cross it, then yes, the costs of the additional roads, etc to "make it actually work" is included in the costs.
If there was no Obamacare, there would be no website and no need for all the extra costs to enable it.
In other words, the engine is part of the cost of the car even though it is separately itemized in the price.
The latest House proposal for increasing the debt limit specifies that the Pres and Congress must use Obamacare. Not sure if that means eliminating the outrageous 75% subsidy or not. I'm sure the Dems will reject.