Bloomberg explaining how healthcare will “bankrupt us,” unless we deny care to the elderly.

I already suggested that we provide a public insurance for the unemployed to the problem you suggested. Also insurance for the unemployed is a lot more affordable than getting cancer when you are unemployed.

 

Well, I can tell you have never been unemployed. Unemployed means you have no money coming in and if you don't have money how is that more affordable than getting cancer? Last I heard no money means no money. There is also the charity route do they pay for insurance? Who funds the public insurance?

 

It is what's known in national healthcare advocacy groups as too damn bad.

 

Don't be so sure. Obama ran on rationing medical care and he was a two term President. A plurality of the voters will just think it applies to someone else.

 

reduce tuition costs
reduce cost of books and lab fees
eliminate tenure
no paid sabbaticals

now on to lawyers
a little tort reform would go a long way in reducing medical costs

now on to admin
with tort reform would come reductions in duplicate tests, or tests when the DR is bascally covering their behind from lawsuit when they already know the outcome

reduce time to market for pharmaceuticals

lots of ways to reduce costs and then insurance rates drop too

 

Some are more equal then others..

 

I thought Obama lied his way around rationing. He knew it was inevitable with government run health care, but he said we were just paranoid and overreacting.

 

No he actually spoke about rationing during a town hall. It just didn't matter.

 

What you are proposing will drop healthcare costs but it won't be dramatic. For example, what would you do about drug companies that overcharge for life saving drugs?

 

Well, grown up people usually have something called a bank account. When we have no money coming in, we start using our bank account. Its a lot more affordable to pay $1,000 per month for family insurance than it is to have to pay $200,000 to fix your cancer.

 

Conservatives tend to not support requiring insurance companies to cover everything, and oppose expanding public healthcare.

 

I would have to agree. They would believe in a more free-enterprise approach as opposed to one-size fits all as well as understanding the importance of a safety net which many libertarians would reject.

 

simple

ease the regulations that force them to incur unreasonable costs

high costs means high prices

 

Looks like Sara Palin was right about the Democrats wanting 'death panels' to decide our fate.

 

Which regulations would you do away with specifically?

 

You mean like "death panels"?

 

Yeah, and with government health care government death panels.

 

No developed nation has death panels. And all of them have universal healthcare except us.

 

So limiting soft drinks to 8 fl. oz. really is not gonna help?

 

So Bloomers wants to throw granny off a cliff?

 

There's the elites, and then there's the farmers digging in that dirt that have soiled hands.

 

Then what is allowing old folks to die? A retirement plan?

 

If we can't afford to take care of our old people we can't afford medical care for illegal immigrants as the Dems propose.

 

They don't care. Anybody but Trump is their mantra.

 

This.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...dians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care