 |
|
Is it not your position that there is a sliding scale of
Posted on: December 14, 2018 at 16:05:58 CT
Badird MU
Posts:
8826
Member For:
9.59 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
govt 'assistance' and the amount of money wasted?
If govt had no 'assistance' in HC, there could be no bloat from it, correct?
If govt had complete control over HC, there would be insurmountable bloat, and HC would get crushed under bureaucracy.
The more govt 'assistance' or control, the more bloat associated.
US govt controls (recently) what can be considered pre-existing. It controls a baseline of what is and is not covered. It also affords the poor and the elderly care when they are sick.
What the US Govt pays per capita on HC is as much as developed countries pay. But other countries pay for ALL of their citizens to be covered, not just the poor and elderly.
As someone who is neither poor nor elderly, I pay for insurance premiums. That is considered PRIVATE funding of HC.
The US spends about the same in PUBLIC money on HC as developed countries abroad, but its citizens pay considerably more in private funds.
Govt bloat is not the correct answer, because we spend more publicly AND privately individually than developed countries do publicly alone, and cover their entire population, while not requiring much in the way of private payments.
I grow very tired of you not understanding my arguments earlier in our conversation. The truth is, we pay more. I want to know why. Your tired talking point of govt bloat CANNOT be the answer, because we pay twice as much as other countries that offer PUBLIC HC, aka govt-funded.
If govt had no 'assistance' in HC, there could be no bloat from it, correct?
If govt had complete control over HC, there would be insurmountable bloat, and HC would get crushed under bureaucracy.
The more govt 'assistance' or control, the more bloat associated.
US govt controls (recently) what can be considered pre-existing. It controls a baseline of what is and is not covered. It also affords the poor and the elderly care when they are sick.
What the US Govt pays per capita on HC is as much as developed countries pay. But other countries pay for ALL of their citizens to be covered, not just the poor and elderly.
As someone who is neither poor nor elderly, I pay for insurance premiums. That is considered PRIVATE funding of HC.
The US spends about the same in PUBLIC money on HC as developed countries abroad, but its citizens pay considerably more in private funds.
Govt bloat is not the correct answer, because we spend more publicly AND privately individually than developed countries do publicly alone, and cover their entire population, while not requiring much in the way of private payments.
I grow very tired of you not understanding my arguments earlier in our conversation. The truth is, we pay more. I want to know why. Your tired talking point of govt bloat CANNOT be the answer, because we pay twice as much as other countries that offer PUBLIC HC, aka govt-funded.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
Is it not your position that there is a sliding scale of - Badird MU - 12/14 16:05:58