The Free markets simply CANNOT manage affordable healthcare.

The cons' idea of healthcare is 'you're on your own, so eat **** and die if you can't afford healthcare'.
That's compassionate conservatism for you.

 

Your claim that Obamacare is nothing like the Heritage Foundation's proposed alternative to Hillarycare is blatantly false. It is very similar in most key aspects.

If your only objection to Obamacare is the mandate, that's not much of an objection, and the courts have already ruled on the concept, no matter what legislation you cloak it in.

 

exactly, some republicans may have voted for it based on facts and what the plan actually offered but Republicans became Obama rivals more than represent a representative democracy.

Once again, ACA is very very similar to what republicans wanted many years ago, it's largely a privatized healthcare system! the notion that it's government run is the biggest lie conservatives have pushed, to turn people against it.

 

What is Obamacare? It's ACA.

ACA was very similar to a bill republicans tried to push in 90s. Look up the 'Chafee bill'. This bill proposed an individual mandate and attempted to standardize benefits and stop predatory practices against pre-existing conditions. This is mostly what ACA has tried to do but were hey identical? NO, but pretty similar. A lot of what this republican bill had, is stuff republicans hated about ACA.

It's all politics. If republicans see there is a strong chance of a 'Bernie' plan being implemented, they would vote for ACA in a heart beat! this is what was going on in the 90s when Clinton was looking to reform healthcare and republicans feared some form of socialized healthcare, you had Ted Kennedy fighting the battle too. When Obama came to office, there wasn't really any threat of a socialized system being proposed so when ACA was proposed, republicans fought it, in part because Obama was pushing it.

 

There is a medical practice in Kansas that does not take any insurance. It provides unlimited office visits for a flat monthly fee; $10 for children, $75 for adults, $100 for seniors. Covers most every routine need. Prescription medications are provided in-office at an average 95% discount off pharmacy, they claim. Coupled with a high-deductable catastrophic care insurance plan to handle the big stuff, they claim an average savings of $500-1000 per month for their patients.

They are wildly profitable at the expense of the unnecessary middlemen and government red tape, not the patient. This is what free market healthcare looks like. And, for them at least, it's working remarkably well. Could this scale to the national level? I think so.

 

Who are they? I'd like to know more about them

 

There is a link in the post to which you replied, that takes you to their website.

Here is the main MD talking about it.

 

If it is a RIGHT then it should be providing food and shelter to EVERYONE! Otherwise the government is abrogating the rights of some people!

Rights are not need based.

The *VAST* percentage of health insurance for Americans is provided by their employer. Medicaid provides health care for those in poverty.,

Your use of the word "many" is just wrong.

 

For a couple in their early 60s not eligible for Medicare yet that's $2400 just for office visits. I'm not sure that's all that great. I don't spend near that

 

Sorry but your leap is in fact a leap and not an argument

 

That's the other part of the argument that their refusal to do it at a municipal or state level means they are full of BS. They say it costs less, but they won't do it even in a state like CA which has roughly the same population as Canada.

They simply refuse to do it. Not to save money as they say is important, or to save lives which they say are important. Absolutely refuse to do it.

Just full of BS, and they know they're full of it.

 

not an argument.

wake me when you can make one.

 

You want an argument refuting a nonsensical assertion?

Oh.

Go back to sleep

 

Of course it's nonsensical. The argument goes something like...

We have the right to life
Healthcare is necessary to live
Therefore, healthcare is a right.

That's the lefty argument.

So the rebuttal uses the second premise of healthcare as a necessity to live. "healthcare" in this instance is a variable because we need lots more to live such as food, clothing, shelter. So therefore, all of those things should also be considered rights.

And you think that's a nonsensical argument. I agree, it is. But you fell into the trap of agreeing that a lefty argument is nonsensical.

Congratulations! You just killed your own argument.

 

And here is the great ARGUMENTATIVE FALLACY USER with another argumentative fallacy.

This assertion is one of his favorite argumentative fallicies - Argument by Dismissal.

Wave your hands magically over the keyboard, type the magic word "leap", and assume you have refuted an assertion.

Your statement refutes NOTHING I said. My guess is that you *can't* refute it because it is true!

 

Nicely done!

 

Has to be a reason why.

 

The reason is that it really doesn't save money, and in fact, is incredibly expensive, and they don't want to pay it. They can only pay for it if they can get the federal government to borrow against our children's ability to pay for it.

They know this, but they just don't care. They'll put our children and grandchildren into debt before they're even out of diapers so they can get their healthcare now, and they couldn't care less about how morally repugnant that is. They really don't care.

 

Neither free market nor the government should have total control of healthcare. It should be a mixture of both with regulations in place to keep either from gaining too much control.

Anyone who says the government should control healthcare is an idiot. The government is full of corrupt scum who answer to lobbyists before anyone else. What would keep hositals from paying off politicians and getting them to rig prices? They do it all the time for other government controlled industries, like the weapons industries. Look at the body armour for the US military. The current standard armor, interceptor armor, is subpar and expensive. There is another armor, Dragon Scale, which is cheaper, and more effective, but politicians rig the system to that only interceptor can be used because they made deals with it's manufacturer to protect their monopoly. What would be any different in healthcare?

 

The free market system is actually significantly cheaper than insurance for routine medical procedures.

 

You are pressing for state ownership of healthcare?

 

There were REASONS why the Heritage Foundation withdrew the proposal and why the Republicans never supported it.

Of course, those are the very reasons the Marxist Democrats picked it up to run with. Mainly that it provided the Marxist Democrats more control over more people.

Obamacare represents Fascism, the first phase of Marxism - govt control of business and capital. The next step, nationalizing health care, represents the next step in Marxism, Socialism - government ownership of business and capital.

Socialism never works. It *always* winds up failing. As Thatcher said, it works till the Socialists run out of other people's money!

 

There's left field, and then there's the bleachers in left field.

You went beyond the bleachers.

 

Really? That is what you discerned from the post?

 

whether it was a bill that passed or not, is not the point. The bill supported by several republicans (including Bon Dole) was #1 drafted by republicans and included the main mandates ACA had - 1. individual mandate 2. standardization of benefits 3. no discriminatory practices against pre-existing conditions.

The point is not whether all republicans supported it or not, the point is that it was largely a republican idea and very very similar to ACA. This just shows you that the conservative effort to make it appear as if ACA is just a liberal government takeover plan is hogwash... all BS. This could've been named Heritage Foundation Affordable Care act just as it could've been named Obamacare.

also explain to me how ACA is a government run system, it is not at all.