Buffett calls Obamacare replacement 'a huge tax cut for guys like me'

It did cost democrats seats, because the democrats lied to voters in selling Obamacare [see my sig].

Now democrats are complaining about Trumpcare. Why anyone would believe a word they say is beyond me.

The attack on Obamacare was a lie from the start .. hence the quandary you and your fellow republicans find yourselves in.

It isn't just democrats complaining about Trumpcare .. hence the quandary you and your fellow republicans find yourselves in.
 
Do you believe Trump when he says that every single American will be covered, with better healthcare, for lower cost?

I was skeptical of it. That said, the current bill hasn't gone trough the Senate and will almost certainly be amended before it's passed. So, the jury is still out.

Why should I believe the democrats criticism of it?
 
The attack on Obamacare was a lie from the start .. hence the quandary you and your fellow republicans find yourselves in.

It isn't just democrats complaining about Trumpcare .. hence the quandary you and your fellow republicans find yourselves in.

Read my sig lol.
 
I was skeptical of it. That said, the current bill hasn't gone trough the Senate and will almost certainly be amended before it's passed. So, the jury is still out.

Why should I believe the democrats criticism of it?

Well, the biggest criticism is based on the CBO #'s. And it isn't just Democrats criticizing the plan.
 
Do you believe Trump when he says that every single American will be covered, with better healthcare, for lower cost?

that depends on what is offered up. If they scrap this notion of the gobblement being in the business of paying for everyone's healthcare through wealth redistribution, then the answer is a resounding no.

The reality is that politicians lie to the American people and people like you want to be lied to. Healthcare from an economics standpoint is no different than buying an iPhone. Now let me repeat as I know that comment will trigger lefties like you to retreat to your safe spaces. I am not saying that iPhones are just as important as healthcare. I am saying that from a strictly economic standpoint healthcare is no different than buying any good.

It responds to the laws of supply and demand. It is a limited resource that requires rationing like every other resource. So when republicans get on their high horse about Obamacare rationing care, they are being disingenuous. Just like democrats giving you the impression that having insurance coverage equates to care. It does not.

If someone like Grind does not want to buy medical insurance, then he should not be forced to. Nor should anyone be forced to pay for his care should he require it. He could still receive care, but he would most likely have to go into debt to pay it back like borrowing for a car. So this notion that the only option is for it to be shifted to taxpayers is financially incorrect.

There is a very simple way to bring down healthcare costs, provide quality affordable care, but that requires removing gobblement from the equation which you refuse to do. So you will get what you pay for, which is poorer outcomes like they have in the UK.

Ask yourself this question, based on the data I posed in APP, if you were a woman where would you rather receive treatment for breast cancer? The UK or the USA?
 
that depends on what is offered up. If they scrap this notion of the gobblement being in the business of paying for everyone's healthcare through wealth redistribution, then the answer is a resounding no.

The reality is that politicians lie to the American people and people like you want to be lied to. Healthcare from an economics standpoint is no different than buying an iPhone. Now let me repeat as I know that comment will trigger lefties like you to retreat to your safe spaces. I am not saying that iPhones are just as important as healthcare. I am saying that from a strictly economic standpoint healthcare is no different than buying any good.

It responds to the laws of supply and demand. It is a limited resource that requires rationing like every other resource. So when republicans get on their high horse about Obamacare rationing care, they are being disingenuous. Just like democrats giving you the impression that having insurance coverage equates to care. It does not.

If someone like Grind does not want to buy medical insurance, then he should not be forced to. Nor should anyone be forced to pay for his care should he require it. He could still receive care, but he would most likely have to go into debt to pay it back like borrowing for a car. So this notion that the only option is for it to be shifted to taxpayers is financially incorrect.

There is a very simple way to bring down healthcare costs, provide quality affordable care, but that requires removing gobblement from the equation which you refuse to do. So you will get what you pay for, which is poorer outcomes like they have in the UK.

Ask yourself this question, based on the data I posed in APP, if you were a woman where would you rather receive treatment for breast cancer? The UK or the USA?

The over-inflated costs of healthcare have very little to do w/ the government. Costs have been rising exponentially for decades. What are you basing your contention that keeping the government out of healthcare is the secret to bringing down costs? What precedent can you point to?

I don't think the government should "run" healthcare - but I also don't think the free market is the answer on this one. The free market has led to rampant price gouging, and quotas for insurance companies. When profit is the only motivating factor, you're not going to end up w/ the best healthcare for anyone, or the most affordable.
 
The over-inflated costs of healthcare have very little to do w/ the government. Costs have been rising exponentially for decades. What are you basing your contention that keeping the government out of healthcare is the secret to bringing down costs? What precedent can you point to?

I don't think the government should "run" healthcare - but I also don't think the free market is the answer on this one. The free market has led to rampant price gouging, and quotas for insurance companies. When profit is the only motivating factor, you're not going to end up w/ the best healthcare for anyone, or the most affordable.

fwiw, we don't have anything close to a free market in health care
 
fwiw, we don't have anything close to a free market in health care

The government has been involved to some extent, & certainly on a regulatory basis - but when you look at individual cases of price gouging, those have little or nothing to do w/ government interference. The normal rules of economics don't seem to apply to the healthcare industry, probably in part because of the fact that many rely on certain products for their very survival.
 
The over-inflated costs of healthcare have very little to do w/ the government. Costs have been rising exponentially for decades. What are you basing your contention that keeping the government out of healthcare is the secret to bringing down costs? What precedent can you point to?

I don't think the government should "run" healthcare - but I also don't think the free market is the answer on this one. The free market has led to rampant price gouging, and quotas for insurance companies. When profit is the only motivating factor, you're not going to end up w/ the best healthcare for anyone, or the most affordable.


What is my precedent? Well, I can't point to a country that has a free market based health care system, as one does not exist. However, I can point to objective evidence.

Just look at Obamacare. One of its provisions is that EVERYONE pay for mental health coverage whether you want it or not. Does that drive up costs for people or reduce them? It is simple math.

Here is another example. Do you know it is against the law to charge anyone less than you charge Medicare? So even if a physician wanted to treat a patient for free, they would be breaking the law. That drives up costs. Look at all the regulations around HIPPA. Whether you think HIPPA is a good thing or bad thing, it drives up cost. It was driven by government.

Government prevents medical insurance from being sold across state lines opening up competition. Therefore, customers have fewer choices. That drives up costs it does not reduce them.

One last example of how the government drives up the cost of care is through Medicare. When Medicare first started, it was a free for all wild wild west. They pretty much paid for everything without question. As with all things, people realized that it was unsustainable. So the government fearing a backlash didn't want to tell the people the truth, so they implemented a scheme where they would pay physician's 80% of what physicians billed. Problem solved right? Nope. Physicians just billed 20% more than they used to. Oh, and guess what? Because it is against the law to charge Medicare more, physicians had to start billing private insurance companies more. POOF just like that the cost of care went up by 20% just because the gobblement was involved.

As I was typing, I did come up with an example of the free market in healthcare. Plastic surgery. Once thought to be the sole purview of the wealthy, it is open to all manner of income brackets. How is that so? Because there is a free market. The government is not involved in payment. People decide what they want, when they want.

Now, I know what you will say "that's elective and doesn't count". Again, you are applying emotional appeals and not logical, factual economic ones.

The majority of healthcare is delivered on a non emergent basis. Insurance should be ONLY for those things that could potentially bankrupt you. That is what insurance does. We have perverted the notion of insurance to cover things like routine doctor's appointments and physicals, medications etc.

As with most things, you are out of your depth debating this topic with me. You would be better off just saying you think you have a right to other peoples money to pay for your healthcare because you believe your healthcare is more important than their rights to their own property. It would at least be honest
 
Trump is trying to open a free market in health care, the truly only alternative to single payer.

Otherwise the status quo ie Obamacare is just another Government funded welfare program destined to drain our resources further, to the point of being unfeasible.

Questioning Trumps understanding of running Healthcare like a business is like trying to tell Jeff Gordon how to drive a race car.
 
The attack on Obamacare was a lie from the start .. hence the quandary you and your fellow republicans find yourselves in.

It isn't just democrats complaining about Trumpcare .. hence the quandary you and your fellow republicans find yourselves in.

you could very well be the most confused individual I have ever had to read.
 
The government has been involved to some extent, & certainly on a regulatory basis - but when you look at individual cases of price gouging, those have little or nothing to do w/ government interference. The normal rules of economics don't seem to apply to the healthcare industry, probably in part because of the fact that many rely on certain products for their very survival.


You are astoundingly ignorant or purposefully obtuse.

How you can say the government is involved "to some extent" in healthcare is mind boggling. To some extent?

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis.../NationalHealthExpendData/NHE-Fact-Sheet.html

Add Medicare and Medicaid and you get more spending than the private sector. Is that "to some extent" to you? What a retard you are

Medicare spending grew 4.5% to $646.2 billion in 2015, or 20 percent of total NHE.
Medicaid spending grew 9.7% to $545.1 billion in 2015, or 17 percent of total NHE.
Private health insurance spending grew 7.2% to $1,072.1 billion in 2015, or 33 percent of total NHE.
 
I was skeptical of it. That said, the current bill hasn't gone trough the Senate and will almost certainly be amended before it's passed. So, the jury is still out.

Why should I believe the democrats criticism of it?

Did the ppl that voted for it get to read and examine it?
 
Back
Top