The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-07-2013, 07:25 AM   #501
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,971

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

This admin. has had how many years to get their website right and it doesn't work? But this is government, so not that unexpected. But the rest of it all will run just so smoothly I'm sure. Reality is they don't care. Give people mandates and it's up to them to figure it out while those in charge have no such concerns.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 08:35 AM   #502
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,376

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
The system doesn't work without standards. Without standard plans insurance companies will just offer "compliance plans" that cost almost nothing but also cover almost nothing.

And people often think they don't need coverage that they do. Lots of young people out there who think they're invincible and don't need this coverage or that coverage. What coverage people "need" is a subject of public debate and should be decided by the public because the public pays for whatever costs are passed on by hospitals who treat the uninsured or underinsured.
So instead of tiered choices, you give them an all or nothing choice (and protect the market from any consumer choice)

Anyway, Democrats seem overly convinced that the vast majority of people will choose the former. I think it's far more likely that a majority of those who lacked decent coverage before will opt for nothing.

And then the death spiral begins.

Regardless, there's no arguing that there will still be 10's of millions of people with zero health coverage. Do we now turn them away? Because the government warned them with a 'mandate?'
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 11:41 AM   #503
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBII View Post
So instead of tiered choices, you give them an all or nothing choice (and protect the market from any consumer choice)

Anyway, Democrats seem overly convinced that the vast majority of people will choose the former. I think it's far more likely that a majority of those who lacked decent coverage before will opt for nothing.

And then the death spiral begins.

Regardless, there's no arguing that there will still be 10's of millions of people with zero health coverage. Do we now turn them away? Because the government warned them with a 'mandate?'
You do get tiered choices. The bronze, silver, gold, and platinum plans under the PPACA are tiers of coverage. And you have consumer choice of which plan fits you best. If that's not enough we can always alter the existing plans and/or offer more plans down the road.

And with the subsidies available I think it's far more likely that a majority of those who lacked decent coverage before will opt for enrollment in one of the available plans through their insurance exchange. If that doesn't happen we can look at the cause and consider reforms.

There will be no death spiral. Sorry.

Last edited by The Lone Bolt; 10-07-2013 at 11:44 AM..
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 06:25 PM   #504
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,093
Default

No reason that a catastrophic plan couldn't be available, or an HSA opt-out.

Forcing young men to pay for young women's medical services is not only discriminatory, but should be illegal, and unconstitutional.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 06:32 PM   #505
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post


Save your insults for the idiot in your mirror.
Just answer the question. Or are you scared?

Here are the facts:
1. 'the PUBLIC hospital system is regulated'
2. 'the PRIVATE family practice system is not regulated'
3. 'Singapore is going increasingly PRIVATE'


Which statement holds true?
a. 'a new PRIVATE hospital may be subject to some of the same regulations as PUBLIC hospitals'
b. 'Singapore's ENTIRE system is regulated'
c. both statements hold true
d. neither statement is true

What is your answer: a, b, c, or d?
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 07:08 PM   #506
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,737

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Just answer the question. Or are you scared?

Here are the facts:
1. 'the PUBLIC hospital system is regulated'
2. 'the PRIVATE family practice system is not regulated'
3. 'Singapore is going increasingly PRIVATE'


Which statement holds true?
a. 'a new PRIVATE hospital may be subject to some of the same regulations as PUBLIC hospitals'
b. 'Singapore's ENTIRE system is regulated'
c. both statements hold true
d. neither statement is true

What is your answer: a, b, c, or d?
You can continue posting your opinion all you like. I have posted at least 3 different sources and you have posted none (except a single sentence from Wiki)....you're just repeating yourself over and over. Your doing it again in this post.

Go find and post articles that state that the Singapore Government does not regulate the private side of their healthcare market. I have posted articles that state the opposite.

Gov regulation of the public sector alone, creates it's own regulatory constraints on the private sector as it competes with it. One of many aspects that would be unacceptable to the right wing in the US.

And here's more commentary from the most comprehensive study written on the subject.
Quote:

Regulating the Healthcare Marketplace

Singapore is focused on managing both public and private outlays for
healthcare while at the same time keeping quality at the highest levels.
The government’s most consequential approach to keeping prices under control
And that's all the time I'm going to waste on this topic.
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 07:34 PM   #507
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,339

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
You can continue posting your opinion all you like. I have posted at least 3 different sources and you have posted none (except a single sentence from Wiki)....you're just repeating yourself over and over. Your doing it again in this post.

Go find and post articles that state that the Singapore Government does not regulate the private side of their healthcare market. I have posted articles that state the opposite.

Gov regulation of the public sector alone, creates it's own regulatory constraints on the private sector as it competes with it. One of many aspects that would be unacceptable to the right wing in the US.

And here's more commentary from the most comprehensive study written on the subject.


And that's all the time I'm going to waste on this topic.
That's all pjj does, he makes unsubstantiated claims and then ignores you when you call him out on it.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 08:12 PM   #508
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,376

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
You can continue posting your opinion all you like. I have posted at least 3 different sources and you have posted none (except a single sentence from Wiki)....you're just repeating yourself over and over. Your doing it again in this post.

Go find and post articles that state that the Singapore Government does not regulate the private side of their healthcare market. I have posted articles that state the opposite.

Gov regulation of the public sector alone, creates it's own regulatory constraints on the private sector as it competes with it. One of many aspects that would be unacceptable to the right wing in the US.

And here's more commentary from the most comprehensive study written on the subject.


And that's all the time I'm going to waste on this topic.
Define 'regulate?"

Virtually nothing in this country is totally unregulated. That doesn't necessarily define anything as 'public' or 'private'

And let's not forget that few US economic sectors are more regulated than 'private' healthcare.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 08:21 PM   #509
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
That's all pjj does, he makes unsubstantiated claims and then ignores you when you call him out on it.
You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about, and neither does he.

The private practice free-market sector is not regulated, and is largely without government influence.

The fact is, Singapore is the best of both worlds, a hybridized free-market, and socialized medicine, which is what (I believe) all successful global health markets are eventually morphing into. Single-payer is antiquated, medieval, and unaffordable.


You want articles proving this? Here are 5:


http://www.oecd.org/countries/singapore/46581101.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...r-health-care/

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....omment-page-1/

http://www.managementjournals.com/jo...ticle17-p2.htm

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ores_heal.html


There are ZERO sources which say Singapore's healthcare system is entirely regulated, yet you keep claiming it to be fact. You are factually wrong on all counts.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 08:26 PM   #510
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
...
You couldn't be more wrong. You are utterly and completely dishonest.

ANYONE searching 30 seconds on the internet can EASILY find that Singapore's private practice free-market healthcare sector is largely unregulated.

Yet you vehemently deny this fact, and continue to deny it.

Last edited by pricejj; 10-07-2013 at 08:28 PM..
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 08:58 PM   #511
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,737

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about, and neither does he.

The private practice free-market sector is not regulated, and is largely without government influence.

The fact is, Singapore is the best of both worlds, a hybridized free-market, and socialized medicine, which is what (I believe) all successful global health markets are eventually morphing into. Single-payer is antiquated, medieval, and unaffordable.


You want articles proving this? Here are 5:


http://www.oecd.org/countries/singapore/46581101.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...r-health-care/

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....omment-page-1/

http://www.managementjournals.com/jo...ticle17-p2.htm

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ores_heal.html


There are ZERO sources which say Singapore's healthcare system is entirely regulated, yet you keep claiming it to be fact. You are factually wrong on all counts.
Spamming the board with threads means nothing. Point to specifics as I suggested and your comment is ridiculous. Nowhere did I say it was ENTIRELY regulated, but keep dancing and squirming, you fool no one.

And as for claiming it to be 'fact', you're lying. I have posted several sources, all of which you ignore then simply repeat your OPINION.

Enough!
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 09:02 PM   #512
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,737

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBII View Post
Define 'regulate?"

Virtually nothing in this country is totally unregulated. That doesn't necessarily define anything as 'public' or 'private'

And let's not forget that few US economic sectors are more regulated than 'private' healthcare.
Not sure what you're trying to say. Other than you agree that healthcare is regulated.

I've stated before, I can't think of any healthcare system that isn't.

Talk to JJ, he seems confused about a simple truth.
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 10:10 PM   #513
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,376

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Not sure what you're trying to say. Other than you agree that healthcare is regulated.

I've stated before, I can't think of any healthcare system that isn't.

Talk to JJ, he seems confused about a simple truth.
I guess I don't get the argument. It's possible to be regulated and yet market-oriented. Which is something the US system honestly doesn't do well.

People need to have a sense of what health decisions really cost them. Employer-based coverage masks that. Mandating Employer-based coverage will make it even worse (so far as it actually happens)
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 10:38 PM   #514
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Spamming the board with threads means nothing. Point to specifics as I suggested and your comment is ridiculous.
You wanted proof. I gave you the first 5 articles that I found after a quick google search. Just open ONE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Nowhere did I say it was ENTIRELY regulated,
Yes you did.

1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Contributions are MANDATED and Government puts a cap on the cost of healthcare and provides subsidies. It's socialism at its best.
2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
80% of primary care is private, but again, the government mandates the cost of treatment.
3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
No one is arguing there isn't a private component in Singapore.....most every industrialized country has both.

However, as I keep telling you....it is HEAVILY REGULATED.

4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
It's ALL regulated. We had this same debate a while ago,guess what? It's still regulated.
You've posted (no less than 4 times) that the entire system is regulated. Now you're changing your mind?

Like I said, the Singapore private practice free-market sector is largely unregulated. I posted 5 example articles, which back up my claim (including the wiki source). Glad to see you've finally backed off your false claim. Took long enough.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 10:53 PM   #515
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 
United In Orange

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 10,093
Default

So which one is it Brit?

A. Is it 'not ENTIRELY regulated'? (your quote)

B. Or 'it's ALL REGULATED'? (your quote)

These statements are in direct contrast to the other. And both are your statements. Which one is your final answer?

Pick A or B.

I know you are pre-disposed to believing that Singapore's private practice free-market healthcare could not possibly remain cheap, yet efficient (without government influence), while working alongside a public hospital system that is highly regulated (with government influence). Just for this moment, elect to drop your ill-conceived notions and look at the facts. After all, Singapore's system works. Isn't that what we're all after here??

As I've stated numerous times, if single-payer was fair, humane, and sustainable, I'd be all for it. But it's not.


Hopefully you pick A, so we can both move on.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 11:23 PM   #516
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,737

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
You wanted proof. I gave you the first 5 articles that I found after a quick google search. Just open ONE.



Yes you did.

1.

2.

3.


4.

You've posted (no less than 4 times) that the entire system is regulated. Now you're changing your mind?

Like I said, the Singapore private practice free-market sector is largely unregulated. I posted 5 example articles, which back up my claim (including the wiki source). Glad to see you've finally backed off your false claim. Took long enough.
You posted 5 links. I checked the Forbes link, guess what......nah, I'll leave it as a surprise as you didn't read it.

I looked at another, it was about Singapore....you'll have to post the part that claimed private healthcare was not regulated. I couldn't find anything, but then I didn't comb through it as carefully as you did, so why don't you post your findings, as I have.

And yet, despite the number of articles I have posted, you still want to keep repeating this??

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
The private practice free-market sector is not regulated, and is largely without government influence.
Post a credible source that agrees with you and states that private healthcare is not regulated.

What I have posted clearly shows it is regulated. ie: Private and Public Healthcare is subject to Government Regulations.

You're hanging your entire argument on what you think is a 'gotcha' figure of speech.

Here, ignore this too.

Quote:
The private hospitals’ profit-making approach to care and rising
healthcare costs were addressed in the Affordable Healthcare White Paper
of 1993, which called for greater, direct government intervention in the
marketplace.
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 11:32 PM   #517
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,737

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBII View Post
I guess I don't get the argument. It's possible to be regulated and yet market-oriented. Which is something the US system honestly doesn't do well.

People need to have a sense of what health decisions really cost them. Employer-based coverage masks that. Mandating Employer-based coverage will make it even worse (so far as it actually happens)
Absolutely. Singapore cleverly stacked the Healthcare deck in what has been described as a 'quasi free market.' Private healthcare competing against public healthcare for the same patients.....even medical tourists. But Singapore is a 'City State' with only a 4.5 million population and imposes government controls and regulations that the US......or most other countries probably can't duplicate. But they can learn from.
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 11:53 PM   #518
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

You heard it here first: The U.S. will go to a single payer, universal health care system. And there will be price controls. It's only a matter of time, and how much money we want to waste, to arrive at that point of consciousness.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 03:18 AM   #519
rolandftw
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,218

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
You heard it here first: The U.S. will go to a single payer, universal health care system. And there will be price controls. It's only a matter of time, and how much money we want to waste, to arrive at that point of consciousness.
I'm sure there is a chance this happens eventually, but there was so much opposition to this in the past, that it is very hard to see it happening anytime in the near future.

Obamacare, or something somewhat similar that made it so Insurance Companies could no longer deny insurance for a preexisting condition would be a good first step. But this would cut profits, and in turn will lead to these insurance companies to do more work with less people. This in turn, will negatively impact the economy.

Really, insurance and pharmaceutical companies are such entrenched into politics as a special interest group that their profitability would have to be considerably threatened for there to ever be a realistic chance of a single payer system implemented.
rolandftw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 04:00 AM   #520
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,339

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rolandftw View Post
I'm sure there is a chance this happens eventually, but there was so much opposition to this in the past, that it is very hard to see it happening anytime in the near future.

Obamacare, or something somewhat similar that made it so Insurance Companies could no longer deny insurance for a preexisting condition would be a good first step. But this would cut profits, and in turn will lead to these insurance companies to do more work with less people. This in turn, will negatively impact the economy.

Really, insurance and pharmaceutical companies are such entrenched into politics as a special interest group that their profitability would have to be considerably threatened for there to ever be a realistic chance of a single payer system implemented.
There was a lot of opposition to same sex marriage and it shifted relatively quick. Conservatives oppose it but not the mainstream of the country. Also it would help the economy not hurt it.

Last edited by peacepipe; 10-08-2013 at 04:04 AM..
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 07:10 AM   #521
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rolandftw View Post
I'm sure there is a chance this happens eventually, but there was so much opposition to this in the past, that it is very hard to see it happening anytime in the near future.

Obamacare, or something somewhat similar that made it so Insurance Companies could no longer deny insurance for a preexisting condition would be a good first step. But this would cut profits, and in turn will lead to these insurance companies to do more work with less people. This in turn, will negatively impact the economy.

Really, insurance and pharmaceutical companies are such entrenched into politics as a special interest group that their profitability would have to be considerably threatened for there to ever be a realistic chance of a single payer system implemented.
This is why I think the core issue in America today is campaign finance reform. End Citizens United. End lobbying. America really needs to wake up to the real fight. TR pointed it out back in 1910: At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. We have yet to win the fight, primarily because special interests buy government and government can stuff the legislation. It's like asking pirates to legislate away their own booty, figuratively speaking.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 11:16 AM   #522
rolandftw
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,218

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
There was a lot of opposition to same sex marriage and it shifted relatively quick. Conservatives oppose it but not the mainstream of the country. Also it would help the economy not hurt it.
Even conservatives, at least young conservatives, predominantly believe there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage. It also doesn't really cost any money to allow it, in churches/synagogues/mosques that see no issue with it.

The destruction of our current health care "system," if you can even call it that would lead to an obvious hit to our economy, while the new system is implemented.

Citizens would probably pay more on a year to year basis in a single payer system, but they would also be covered later in life when they were more likely to need medical care. The overall cost would be less for most people, but the initial cost would be greater.
rolandftw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 11:22 AM   #523
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
This is why I think the core issue in America today is campaign finance reform. End Citizens United. End lobbying. America really needs to wake up to the real fight. TR pointed it out back in 1910: At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. We have yet to win the fight, primarily because special interests buy government and government can stuff the legislation. It's like asking pirates to legislate away their own booty, figuratively speaking.
Well, unfortunately that's not going to happen. In fact, in their ruling today, the SC is going to make it even worse.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 11:26 AM   #524
rolandftw
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,218

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
This is why I think the core issue in America today is campaign finance reform. End Citizens United. End lobbying. America really needs to wake up to the real fight. TR pointed it out back in 1910: At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. We have yet to win the fight, primarily because special interests buy government and government can stuff the legislation. It's like asking pirates to legislate away their own booty, figuratively speaking.
I agree with all of this. Citizens vote people into office to better serve this country. Having all these different groups fund a campaign basically means those groups buy their causes. Causes that weren't necessarily campaigned for or voted for.

At the minimum, I'd like a lot more transparency. Personally, would like to get rid of the Super Pac's and Corporate Donations. Doesn't have a place in a political system imo
rolandftw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 11:44 AM   #525
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,339

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rolandftw View Post
Even conservatives, at least young conservatives, predominantly believe there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage. It also doesn't really cost any money to allow it, in churches/synagogues/mosques that see no issue with it.

The destruction of our current health care "system," if you can even call it that would lead to an obvious hit to our economy, while the new system is implemented.

Citizens would probably pay more on a year to year basis in a single payer system, but they would also be covered later in life when they were more likely to need medical care. The overall cost would be less for most people, but the initial cost would be greater.
the system to some extent,granted its not single payer per say,is already in place with medicare.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:41 AM.


Denver Broncos