Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/23/2018 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 1:06:00 PM (view original):
It just seems like you're conflicted. You want nationalized healthcare because you know, deep down, that it's really the only solution, but it conflicts with your GOP talking points about the free market solving everything.

Idiot. I gave you lasik and Botox as examples. Does nationalized healthcare pay for that? No. I want A free marketplace where doctors can charge what they want. Nothing to do with nationalized healthcare.

You can’t read or are dumb. Or both.

If you don't get lasik or botox do you die?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 1:17:00 PM (view original):
No one is really all that worried about a sprained ankle. But people put off treating relatively minor things (infected tooth, diabetes) because they can't afford treatment and have died.

The market doesn't help them. The market ***** them.

There's a reason why all seniors need medicare. There is no market for healthcare for old people. It's too expensive. No one can afford it.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 1:23:00 PM (view original):
Extra insurance, sure. But they can't purchase primary insurance because it doesn't exist. The market doesn't work.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 1:45:00 PM (view original):
The cost of national healthcare is actually less than the cost (gov + individual) of the current system.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 2:00:00 PM (view original):
You pay $700 a month for insurance. Your employer probably pays a portion and it’s pretax, so there is a little cost to the government. That cost goes away with nationalized healthcare.

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/23/2018 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 2:00:00 PM (view original):
You pay $700 a month for insurance. Your employer probably pays a portion and it’s pretax, so there is a little cost to the government. That cost goes away with nationalized healthcare.

But it has to cover the full burden. Or $1800. Vs a little? Show me the math.

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/23/2018 2:43:00 PM (view original):
If this is true and can be verified I am all for it. Still don’t see how it works using myself as an example.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/23/2018 2:43:00 PM (view original):
If this is true and can be verified I am all for it. Still don’t see how it works using myself as an example.

Think about it this way.

Current system:

Cost to individuals over 10 years: X
Cost to government (tax revenue) over ten years: Y

X + Y = Z


Nationalized:

Cost to individuals: 0
Cost to government: A

A + 0 = A

A < Z

Obviously, taxes go up under the nationalized plan so A is significantly larger than Y, but cumulatively, A is less.

Posted by toddcommish on 10/23/2018 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/23/2018 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/23/2018 2:43:00 PM (view original):
If this is true and can be verified I am all for it. Still don’t see how it works using myself as an example.

Think about it this way.

Current system:

Cost to individuals over 10 years: X
Cost to government (tax revenue) over ten years: Y

X + Y = Z


Nationalized:

Cost to individuals: 0
Cost to government: A

A + 0 = A

A < Z

Obviously, taxes go up under the nationalized plan so A is significantly larger than Y, but cumulatively, A is less.

Classic BL. You have no effing clue how much A would be, but you just throw A<Z as if it's a universal truth ("Well, A is first, and Z is last, so therefore nationalized healthcare is cheaper... ")

If I'm a medical provider, I jack the cost of A through the roof so that A >>>> Z, and invalidates your whole argument.