Grave_n_idle wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Treznor wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:Sibirsky wrote:The most basic understanding of economics would lead you to believe that yes, the public option will be horrible, and more people joining it is horrible.
No, the most basic understanding of economics would cause you to look at working, successful models, like the UK, and realise that economies of scale can't realistically get any more pronounced than when the entire nation is negotiating for the goods or services.
Like their cancer surviver rates? No thanks.
Way to move the goalposts.
We're looking at an overall view of healthcare and costs, not specifics. The question at hand is whether or not overall health is improved by ensuring everyone gets medical care when they need it? The answer, according to every measurable criteria, is "yes." National systems, whether or not they outlaw private health insurance, meet the overall needs of the people better than strictly private health insurance systems.
The plan does not insure everybody. The plan does not address costs. In fact it increases cost of private plans. The plan fails in almost every criteria.
Which 'plan'?
I think it's funny that people can be discussing all the faults of a bill that doesn't have a unified version, yet. I think it's even more funny that they can discuss the faults in a bill that has been constantly dismantled by it's opponents.
That's not the 'humourous' funny, though - it's the 'ew, this tastes funny' kind of funny.
None of them. There are what 5 versions going around? Not a single one of them insures everybody or addresses costs. What is the problem? A bunch of uninsured people? To them, the problem is access. To me, the problem is costs. Address costs and the uninsured will be able to afford it.