Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Having insurance lowers financial barriers to quality care. It also increases perceived quality of care. That's indisputable.
If the insurance industries main purpose is how much profit they can make, then we really don't need them do we.
Government can do the same job, at less cost, being that peoples actual health is the point, not profits.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/62...disadvantages/
Yes they are corrupt, you just haven't been paying attention. They are not actually interested in the health care that people receive and they use every trick in the book and loophole in the law to get around covering people in their time of need.
The National Committee for Quality Assurance is an independent, nonprofit group. Their goal is to improve health care quality. They created a set of measures called the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®).1 These measures are used to rate health plans. They rate quality of care, access to care and member satisfaction. More than 90% of America’s health plans use these measures.
You don't know what you are talking about.
The actual care at the V.A. for instance is excellent
and if not for the funding problem, thank you Congress, so to would be the whole system be.
I'll take your word on that for now, but it has nothing to do with it. If the middle man and their profit gouging is eliminated, then government paid doctors can be payed comparably and health care would still cost less. Its really just common sense, cut out the enormous profits and there is less costs and better healthcare for all.
Didn't say it wasn't the best, but they were sent into Iraq with shoddy equipment resulting in enormous unnecesary casualties.
But even still, whether you disagree with that or not, the war itself was unnecessary and caused an enormous amount of casualties.
If the government is going to send them into war, then the government is responsible for properly funding The V.A. to accomodate them when they come home wounded, they don't.
Excellent actual care, less funding.
If a system is overburdened and underfunded then that is going to have a big effect on managment. Try putting two and two together Bill.
Good, glad you agree. So throw the bums out, get rid of the profiteers that back them, and properly fund the system.
Thanks to anyone who supported deregulation of the banks. Don't be such a partison, republicans are still in favor of deregulation of the banks. Hmmm, wonder why that could be?
No they aren't. Not like Frank and Clinton were.
Seems all you have is talking points Bill. For one thing, they are not Obama's ideas, they are the result of the coalition put together by Obama to look into the matter and to insure that the Country isn't put into that situation again.
The ball rests in Obama's hands, regardless of who passed it to him.
Of course Wall street and their lobbyists got to Congress again in order that they block the legislation as much as possible.
The fact that you didn't answer the question is telling.
Comment